Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sathupathi Sreedevi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 July, 2021
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3974 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to quash the proceedings in FIR No.94 of 2021 of Panjani Police Station, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District registered for the offence punishable under 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity "NDPS Act").
2. The brief facts of the case are that the above FIR was registered on the allegation of illegal transportation and possession of ganja. The Police have seized 16.3 Kgs of ganja from the possession of A1 to A3 under mediators' report and arrested A1 to A3. Basing on the confession statement of A1 to A3 that as per the directions of the petitioner they are transporting the ganja, the petitioner is added as A4.
3. Heard Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the offences and he is falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and she was not present at the scene of offence. In fact she has undergone treatment in a hospital. Learned counsel submits that 2 except the confession statement of the other accused there is no other material to show that the petitioner is connected with the offence and the Police have not followed the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act and Section 100 Cr.P.C. before seizing the property, as such the proceedings are liable to be quashed on that ground alone.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the offence is committed under the NDPS Act and there are specific overt acts against the petitioner. He submits that once the investigation is completed, true facts will come to light and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought at this stage.
6. The Courts should exercise the power of quashing criminal proceeding very sparingly, with circumspection and in rare cases. The courts will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whims and fancies.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down the following guidelines which are to be taken into consideration while dealing with quash petitions:
1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their 3 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an 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 uncontroverted 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 F.I.R. 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.
47. 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.
(State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.1)
8. In the present case learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR on the grounds that the alleged confession statements were made only to implicate the petitioner, the medical certificate filed along with the petition clearly show that the petitioner was under treatment from 20.06.2021 to 01.07.2021 and the mediators' report was prepared in the presence of sub-ordinates of Tahsildar, which is done in violation of the NDPS Act. The above grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are all disputed questions of facts which cannot be dealt with while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process Court and to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. (N.Soundaram vs. P.K.Pounraj2).
10. The presence or absence of the petitioner at the scene of offence or with regard to her involvement in the crime can only be confirmed during the course of investigation. The FIR cannot be quashed on these kinds of flimsy grounds and when the same involves disputed questions of fact which are matter of investigation and trial.
11. In view of the above discussion and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to quash the FIR.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Date: 19.07.2021 IKN 2 (2014) 10 SCC 616 6 THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI (dismissed) CRIMINAL PETITION No.3974 of 2021 Date: 19.07.2021 IKN 7 Crlp No.4443 of 2020 This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru-cum-Special Judge, under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989 in respect of the petitioners/A1 to A5 and A7 to A9, wherein cognizance has been taken alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under the 143, 341, 342, 323, 324 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC, ST (POA) Act.
The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.2/complainant who is studying B.Tech (final) year in SRKR Engineering College lodged a report alleging that on 20.07.2018 on receiving call from one Chennu Ram Charan who is his brother's friend respondent No.2 along with his brother and friends went to the shed situated at Town Railway Station. The accused by abusing beat respondent No.2 and others with rods due to which they sustained bleeding injuries. Basing on the same, crime was registered and was taken cognizance as S.C.No.70 of 2020.
Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-state.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet reveals that investigating Officer after thorough enquiry crime was registered under Section 307 I.P.C. but during the course of investigation found that Section 307 is not attracted as they could not seize any incriminating material i.e. crime weapons from the scene of offence and after examining the witnesses deleted Section 307 I.P.C. But, later the second investigating officer has again added Section 307 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the injuries certificate and points out that the 8 injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature and as such Section 307 I.P.C. is not attracted to the offences. Leanred counsel for the petitioners submits that in the entire evidence of the witnesses there is no whisper about abusing them in the name of the caste.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that disputed questions cannot be gone into and it will only come into light once trial is commenced.
In view of the fact that the crime weapons as alleged were not recovered and the injury sustained by respondent No.2 are simple in nature and also considering the fact that there are no allegations in the evidence collected with regard to abusing in the name of caste, there shall by stay of all further proceedings in SC, ST SC No.70 of 2020 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari Eluru - cum -Special Judge under SCs, STs (POA) Act, 1989.
9Crl.P.No.4444 of 2020.
Respondent No.2 herein has given complaint alleging that there was an agreement between him and the petitioner/accused with regard to immovable property and the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance but failed to pay the remaining amount. Therefore, the petitioner requested respondent No.2 to sell the property and return the amount paid by him. However, later the deviated the same and started demanding respondent No.2 to handover the land so that he would lay plots and sell the property. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 09.05.2020 the petitioner came to the house of respondent No.2 and abused him in the name of the caste. Basing on the said complaint the present crime is registered.
Heard Sir K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1- state.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident has taken place on 09.05.2020 as alleged in the complaint, but the complaint was lodged on 16.09.2020. He also submits that if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken it is disclosed that there is civil dispute between the parties and giving complaint after lapse of four months itself shows that to implicate the petitioner in a crime the said complaint is lodged, which is nothing but abuse of process of law and further learned counsel submits that even as per the complaint abusing respondent No.2 was not in the public eye. Hence, provisions under SCs STs (POA) Act are not attracted.
In that view of the matter there shall be stay of all further proceedings.