Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Srinivasa Methrani vs State Of Ap on 25 February, 2025
APHC010207252019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4048/2019
Between:
Srinivasa Methrani ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. SAI SANJAY SURANENI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
Crlp_4048_2019
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.209 of 2018,on the file of Anantapur I Town Police Station, Anantapur.
2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.7 and the sole respondent is the defacto complainant. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 along with three others were luring public and were making them to bet money on matka business with a malafide intention to earn more money. While they were going in a white colour Maruthi Suzuki Swift VDI car bearing No.AP31AV6713, they were intercepted by the police and were arrested by seizing the aforesaid car along with matka chits, 4 cell phones, 4 kilograms of ganja, dried up leaves and cash of Rs.11,14,000/- from their possession, in the presence of mahazardars. The petitioner herein is arrayed as accused No.7 basing on a confession statement of accused No.1 that he came to the petitioner herein on 22.05.2018 for collecting his share of money for doing matka business and went to Bangalore for purchasing 2 kilograms of Ganja. Basing on the said confession statement, the petitioner herein was arraigned as accused No.7 in FIR.No.209 of 2018, dated 23.05.2018 on the file of Anantapur I Town Police Station, Anantapur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC, Section 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act and 8(c) and 20(b) of NDPS Act. With a plea to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the confession statement of an accused cannot be a basis to arraign the petitioner as an accused. In the instant case, except vague and bald confession of accused no.1, there is no allegation in the confession statement or in the complaint that the petitioner has been doing ganja business at any point of time and there is no allegation that the petitioner has abutted the 1st accused to purchase ganja with the money 3 VS,J Crlp_4048_2019 allegedly given by him. Even otherwise, the investigation officer in the case on hand is himself the complainant, which is not permissible under law as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab1, wherein the Court held that in order to have a fair investigation, the informant and the investigator must not be the same person in view of the principle that Justice must not only be done, but appears to be done. Hence requested this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner herein by way of the impugned proceedings.
4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the confession made by the 1st accused would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC, Section 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act and 8(c), 20(b) of NDPS Act,therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 12.07.2019, this Court has passed the following interim order:
"....Since an important question of law is raised, there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.209 of 2018 of Ananthapuramu I-Town Police Station, as far as the petitioner-A.7 is concerned, for a period of two weeks from today i.e. 26.07.2019. Till then, the Police are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner-A.7."
6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.209 of 2018, on the file of Anantapur I Town Police Station, Anantapur, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"1
2018 SCC OnLine 974 4 VS,J Crlp_4048_2019
7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.
8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
In "R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 2 ", the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and 2 AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_4048_2019
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in "Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar3"
10. In "State of Haryana v. BhajanLal4" the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an 3 AIR 1990 SC 494 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_4048_2019 investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand.
12. From the material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioner herein was arraigned as accused No.7 basing on a confessional statement made by the 1st accused and hence, the petitioner was implicated as accused No.7 in F.I.R.No.209 of 2018, on the file of Anantapur I Town Police Station, Anantapur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC, Section 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act and 8(c) and 20(b) of NDPS Act. As held by the Apex Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab(1st supra), the Court held that in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Investigating Officer and the informant cannot be one and the same. In that case, one P. Hameed Khan, Sub-Inspector of 7 VS,J Crlp_4048_2019 Police is both the complainant and the investigating officer. For better understanding, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is extracted hereunder:
"25. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different two Judge Benches of this Court, the importance of a fair investigation from the point of view of an accused as a guaranteed constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is considered necessary that the law in this regard be laid down with certainty. To leave the matter for being determined on the individual facts of a case, may not only lead to a possible abuse of powers, but more importantly will leave the police, the accused, the lawyer and the courts in a state of uncertainty and confusion which has to be avoided. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof."
13. Even in the case on hand, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu I Town Police Station, is the complainant and as well as the investigating officer. As per the aforesaid judgment, for a trial to be fair, the investigation must be conducted without any bias or unfair influence. The person who provides information about the case and the person who investigates should be different people in order to ensure that the investigation is impartial. On this ground alone, the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR.No.209 of 2018, on the file of Anantapur I Town Police Station, 8 VS,J Crlp_4048_2019 Anantapur District are hereby quashed with respect to the petitioner/accused No.7.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 25.02.2025 Gss