HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI **** CRIMINAL PETITION No:2596 of 2021 Between: 1. PERURI SREERAMA MURTHY, S/O APPA RAO, AGED 76 YEARS, OCC- RETD.EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 9-6-46/2, SF2 ASHOK RESIDENCY, SIVAJIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-17. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.I.D, REGIONAL OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IANDCAD, B.R.R. VAMSADHARA PROJECT, MAINTENANCE DIVISION NARASANNAPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): **** DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 06.04.2026 2 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No 2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No 3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 3 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL PETITION No: 2596 of 2021 % 06.04.2026 # Between: 1. PERURI SREERAMA MURTHY, S/O APPA RAO, AGED 76 YEARS, OCC- RETD.EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 9-6-46/2, SF2 ASHOK RESIDENCY, SIVAJIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-17. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, C.I.D, REGIONAL OFFICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IANDCAD, B.R.R. VAMSADHARA PROJECT, MAINTENANCE DIVISION NARASANNAPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): ! Counsel for the Petitioners : D Krishna Murthy ^Counsel for the Respondent : P.Akhila Naidu, Assistant Public Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: 4 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J ? Cases referred: 1) 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 2) 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 3) (2005) 1 SCC 122 4) (2001) 8 SCC 570 5) (1988) 1 SCC 692 6) (1998) 5 SCC 749 7) (2022) 6 SCC 599 8) (1977) 2 SCC 699 9) (2011) 7 SCC 59 10) (2009) 6 SCC 351 11) (2002) 3 SCC 89 12) (2021) 5 SCC 524 5 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2596/2021 ORDER: Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’) by the Petitioner seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.36 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam wherein he has been arraigned as Accused No.12, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 403, 408, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 177, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’). 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, Peruri Sreerama Murthy, is a retired Government servant who served the Irrigation Department with distinction for over three decades, having been appointed as Assistant Engineer on 05.12.1976 and having demitted office honourably as Deputy Executive Engineer upon superannuation on 30.09.2006. It is urged that the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings against such a person, bereft of any credible or legally sustainable foundation, constitutes a manifest abuse of the process of the 6 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J Court and warrants the exercise of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to quash the same. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner was duly promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer and was accordingly relieved from his posting as Assistant Engineer in the Vamsadhara Project Maintenance Division, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, on 07.07.2005, whereafter he assumed charge as I/C Deputy Executive Engineer in the Special Minor Irrigation Division, Irrigation Circle, Visakhapatnam. It is emphatically contended that from the said date, the Petitioner had no connection whatsoever, in any capacity, with the BRR Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner furthermore submits that the charge sheet filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam, itself categorically avers at paragraph No.60 that the alleged offences occurred between 2006 and 2009, and that the decision to procure and install Screw Gear Shutters in the Vamsadhara Project Left Main Canal was formally taken only on 15.04.2006, vide Memo No.VPC/DB/3709 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project Circle. It is submitted that since the Petitioner had already been transferred out of the said project nearly one full year prior to this decision, there existed no legal, factual, or physical possibility of his having prepared any estimates in connection 7 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J therewith, and the foundational premise of the prosecution’s case accordingly collapses upon its own irreconcilable internal inconsistency. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is a well-settled proposition of law, affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of authoritative decisions, that where the allegations contained in a charge sheet, even if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, the High Court is not merely empowered but is duty-bound to quash the proceedings. It is urged that the present case is a textbook illustration of precisely such a situation warranting the exercise of that salutary jurisdiction. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that a careful perusal of the charge sheet reveals a conspicuous and fatal absence of any specific, particularised, or individuated allegation of an overt act attributable exclusively to the Petitioner. It is pointed out that paragraph No.11 of the charge sheet, which purports to describe the role of Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers including Accused Nos.12 to 18, 30, and 32 to 39, does no more than make omnibus and generalised averments that such persons prepared estimates without involving Water Users Associations and without designs and drawings for walkways, without attributing any identified document, specific transaction, or act bearing the Petitioner’s signature or any other identifying mark to him personally. 8 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner additionally draws this Court’s attention to the conduct of the State Government itself as furnishing compelling and irrefutable evidence of the Petitioner’s non-involvement. It is submitted that upon becoming cognizant of the alleged fraud in the BRR Vamsadhara Project, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.403, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2)) Department, dated 31.03.2012, directing disciplinary proceedings against 34 specifically identified delinquent officers, and that the Petitioner’s name is conspicuously absent therefrom. Further, no charge memo, suspension order, or adverse action of any nature was initiated against the Petitioner, who was permitted to retire honourably in 2006, a circumstance wholly inconsistent with and destructive of the prosecution’s case that he was a co-conspirator in a massive criminal fraud. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the continuation of proceedings in C.C.No.36/2019 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, against the Petitioner, an octogenarian retired public servant, would not only be an exercise in futility but would constitute a grave miscarriage of justice, subjecting him to the ignominy and trauma of a prolonged criminal trial on charges that are inherently improbable, self-contradictory, and wholly unsupported by credible material evidence. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests that this Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of 9 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to quash the charge sheet as against the Petitioner in C.C.No.36/2019 in its entirety, in the interests of justice. 10. On the other hand, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the temporal argument advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, to the effect that his transfer out of the Vamsadhara Project Circle on 07.07.2005 renders his involvement in the preparation of fraudulent estimates a factual impossibility, is wholly misconceived, legally untenable, and incapable of withstanding scrutiny in the face of the oral and documentary evidence collected during the course of the thorough and extensive investigation conducted by the CID over a period of nearly eight years. It is urged that this Court ought not to be persuaded by an argument that is superficially attractive but fundamentally flawed. 11. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has conclusively established, through credible oral testimony and seized documentary evidence, that the estimates in question were in fact prepared in the year 2005 itself, that is, during the very period when the Petitioner was admittedly posted as Assistant Engineer at Narasannapeta in the Vamsadhara Project Circle, Srikakulam. It is emphasised that the formal sanction orders and agreements being concluded on 26.10.2006 does not imply that the estimates were prepared only after that date, since the preparation of estimates is a preliminary step that necessarily precedes and substantially predates the formal according of sanction and the conclusion of agreements, 10 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J and that the Petitioner cannot seek refuge behind the date of formal sanction while ignoring the established fact of his personal preparation of fraudulent estimates with artificially inflated rates. 12. 12. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that witnesses LW.51, LW.52, LW.21, and LW.22, being office staff and officials of the BRR Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam, have clearly and unequivocally identified the signatures and initials of the Petitioner/Accused No.12 on the estimates, Measurement Books, Agreements, and other relevant documents, thereby furnishing direct and cogent documentary proof of his active participation in the preparation of the fraudulent estimates. It is further submitted that the documents seized by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, D.L.N. Varma, during the course of investigation unambiguously identify the Petitioner as a responsible person for the preparation of estimates at inflated rates, and that this body of evidence, both oral and documentary, constitutes a formidable and reliable foundation for the prima facie case against him that cannot be dismissed by a mere assertion of transfer. 13. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor furthermore submits that the investigation further revealed that the Petitioner, along with Accused Nos.13 to 18 and 37, who served as Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers respectively, prepared 1127 fraudulent estimates with ante-dates, without involving the Water Users Associations as mandatorily required, without any designs or drawings for walkway structures, and with fictitious 11 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J representations of the Presidents and members of the said Associations, all in furtherance of a meticulously planned criminal conspiracy involving 42 accused persons including Engineering officials, contractors, stamp vendors, and Accounts branch officials, which resulted in a wrongful loss of Rs.26,35,76,427/- to the State exchequer. It is submitted that the physical verification of works conducted by a team constituted by the Engineer-in- Chief’s office conclusively established gross overpayment and material discrepancies, and that this staggering loss to public funds could not have been accomplished without the active and knowing participation of field-level officials such as the Petitioner, who prepared the very estimates upon which the entire edifice of the conspiracy was constructed. 14. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the contention that the absence of disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner is indicative of his innocence reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution under the Indian legal framework. It is well-settled by a long line of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution are entirely distinct, independent, and parallel remedies operating in separate legal domains, governed by different standards of proof, different rules of evidence, and different criteria of culpability, and that the non-initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be construed as a clean chit from the State or as any admission of the Petitioner’s non-involvement. It is further submitted 12 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J that the full extent of the fraud and the identity of all persons involved came to light only gradually during the investigation that commenced in 2011, which is why the Petitioner's name did not appear in the original complaint, and why no adverse action was taken at the time of his retirement in 2006, circumstances that are entirely irrelevant to the question of his criminal liability. 15. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the charge sheet filed on 06.06.2019 is the culmination of a thorough, multi-layered investigation spanning nearly eight years, involving the examination of 76 witnesses, seizure and scrutiny of voluminous documentary evidence including 145 Measurement Books and 1129 Agreements and Estimates, and physical verification of works at multiple locations. It is urged that this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ must remain mindful of the well-settled legal principle that such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of cases, and that at this stage the Court is required to proceed on the assumption that the allegations in the charge sheet are true and correct, and determine only whether they disclose a prima facie case, a test which, on the facts of the present case, is amply and unambiguously satisfied. 16. 16. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor furthermore submits that the Petitioner’s allegation of false implication motivated by personal animosity is a bald and self-serving assertion wholly unsupported by credible evidence, and that all material evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, 13 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J establishes his prima facie involvement in the offences alleged, including those punishable under Sections 120-B, 177, 408, 409, 420, 465, and 471 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is accordingly urged that the Criminal Petition be dismissed in limine as being wholly without merit, that the learned Trial Court be permitted to proceed with C.C.No.36/2019 in accordance with law, and that the Petitioner be relegated to avail all remedies and urge all defences available to him in the course of a full and fair trial, the appropriate and constitutionally prescribed forum for the determination of his guilt or innocence. 17. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 18. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 19. In the light of the case of the prosecution and the contentions of the learned Counsel for both the sides, now the point for consideration is: “Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.36/2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam is liable to be quashed in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’/Section 528 of ‘the BNSS’?" 20. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1, wherein at paragraph No.6 it is held as under: 1 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 14 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J “6. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal it is necessary to consider the nature and scope of the inherent power of the High Court under S. 561-A of the Code. The said section saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. There is no doubt that this inherent power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code. In the present case the magistrate before whom the police report has been filed under S. 173 of the Code has yet not applied his mind to the merits of the said report and it may be assumed in favour of the appellant that his request for the quashing of the proceedings is not at the present stage covered by any specific provision of the Code. It is well established that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person 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. If the criminal proceeding in question is in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by an accused person and it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceeding on that ground. Absence of the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category. Cases may also arise where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of looking at the complaint or the First Information Report to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal court to be issued against the accused person. A third category of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court can be successfully invoked may also arise. In cases falling under this category the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the 15 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction under S. 561-A the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the accusation made against the accused would not be sustained. Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561- A in the matter of quashing criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial decisions on the point (Vide : In Re : Shripad G. Chandavarkar, AIR 1928 Bom 184, Jagat Chandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress, ILR 26 Cal. 786, Dr. Shankar Singh v. State of Punjab, 56 Pun LR 54 : (AIR 1954 Punj 193), Nripendra Bhusan Roy v. Gobinda Bandhu Majumdar, AIR 1924 Cal 1018 and Ramanathan Chettiyar v. Sivarama Subramania, ILR 47 Mad 722 : (AIR 1925 Mad 39))” 21. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in R.P. Kapur supra, while delineating the contours of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ authoritatively held that such power, though to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, may be invoked to quash criminal proceedings in order to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. The Court identified, illustratively, three broad categories warranting the exercise of such power: first, where there exists a legal bar to the institution or continuance of the proceedings, such as absence of a mandatory sanction; secondly, where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence; and thirdly, where the allegations do constitute an offence, yet there is either no legal evidence to support the charge or the evidence on record is so patently inconsistent with the accusation that no conviction can ensue. It was further emphasised that while exercising such inherent jurisdiction, the High Court must refrain from 16 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J assessing the reliability or sufficiency of evidence, as that domain lies squarely within the province of the trial court. 22. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 2 , at paragraph Nos.102 & 103 it is held as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 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 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 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 17 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court 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 whim or caprice.” 23. Hence, in Bhajan Lal supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while elucidating the scope of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the inherent powers under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ illustratively delineated seven categories of cases wherein such power may justifiably be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. These include cases where the allegations, even if accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence; where the materials accompanying the FIR fail to disclose a cognizable offence warranting police investigation; where the uncontroverted allegations and collected evidence do not make out any offence against the accused; where the alleged offence is purely non-cognizable and investigation is undertaken without statutory sanction; where the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person could conclude that there exists sufficient ground to proceed; where there is an express legal bar to the institution or continuance of proceedings or an efficacious alternative statutory remedy; and where the criminal proceeding is manifestly tainted with mala fides or instituted with ulterior motives for wreaking personal vengeance. The Court, however, sounded a note of imperative restraint, cautioning that the 18 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J power of quashing must be exercised most sparingly, in the rarest of rare cases, and that the High Court must refrain from undertaking any enquiry into the reliability or truthfulness of the allegations, lest such extraordinary jurisdiction degenerate into an arbitrary or capricious exercise. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque3, at paragraph No.8 it is held as under: “8. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognises and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal, possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle “quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest” (when the law gives a person anything, it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of 3 (2005) 1 SCC 122 19 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.” 25. Accordingly, in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is an exception and not the rule, the provision being declaratory rather than conferential in nature, merely preserving the inherent jurisdiction which the High Court possessed prior to the enactment of the Code. The Court held that such jurisdiction may be invoked only in three contingencies, namely, to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice, and that no inflexible or exhaustive guidelines can be formulated governing its exercise. Emphasising that courts exist for the advancement of justice and possess inherent authority ex debito justitiae to right a wrong and prevent injustice, the Court cautioned that such wide power must be exercised with utmost restraint, care, and circumspection, and not as a substitute for appellate or revisional jurisdiction. It was further held that where the initiation or continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process, or where even accepting the allegations in toto no offence is disclosed, the High Court would be fully justified in quashing such proceedings upon a limited examination of the complaint and the attendant material, without embarking upon a full-fledged appreciation of evidence. 20 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 26. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan4, at paragraph No.6 it is held as under: “6. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon the High Court inherent powers 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 a well-established principle of law that every court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae — to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone it exists or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. The principle embodied in the section is based upon the maxim: quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things without which the thing itself would be unavailable. The section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the section. As lacunae are sometimes found in procedural law, the section has been embodied to cover such lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases.” 27. Ergo, in Dinesh Dutt Joshi supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ does not confer any new power upon the High Court, but merely recognises and preserves its inherent jurisdiction to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasised that every court possesses inherent authority ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, a principle founded upon the maxim quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest, signifying that when the law grants a power, it also confers whatever is necessary for its effective exercise. Acknowledging that procedural law cannot anticipate every 4 (2001) 8 SCC 570 21 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J contingency and that lacunae may arise, the Court held that Section 482 is designed to address such situations; however, it cautioned that the extraordinary powers preserved thereunder must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and reserved for exceptional cases alone, lest such inherent jurisdiction be invoked routinely or indiscriminately. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre5, at paragraph No.7 it is held as under: “7. The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 29. Hence, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enunciated that when a criminal prosecution is sought to be quashed at the threshold, the paramount test is whether the uncontroverted allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of the offence alleged. The Court further held that it is not only permissible but incumbent upon the High Court to consider the special features and peculiar facts of the case in assessing whether it would be expedient, fair, and in the interests of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Emphasising that the judicial process cannot be allowed to be utilised for oblique purposes, the Court 5 (1988) 1 SCC 692 22 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J observed that where the chances of an ultimate conviction appear bleak and no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution to proceed, the High Court, having regard to the overarching ends of justice, would be justified in quashing the proceedings even at a preliminary stage. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate6, at paragraph No.22 it is held as under: “22. It is settled that the High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : JT (1990) 4 SC 650] this Court examined the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to be followed by the courts. Exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guidelines is 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. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure. The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised while invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to.” 31. Thus, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court is vested with wide powers of judicial review even in 6 (1998) 5 SCC 749 23 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J criminal matters, exercisable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution as well as under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. Referring to the principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal supra, the Court reiterated that although no rigid or inflexible formula can govern the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction, one well-recognised category warranting interference is where the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence. The Court further underscored that the power of superintendence under Article 227 is both administrative and judicial in nature, designed to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of law and that the administration of justice remains pure and untainted. While emphasising that the powers conferred are of the widest amplitude, the Court sounded a note of caution that the greater the power, the greater the responsibility to exercise it with due care, restraint, and circumspection, and that depending upon the facts of a given case, recourse to Article 227 or Section 482 may obviate the necessity of invoking Article 226. 32. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar7, at paragraph No.21 it is held as under: “21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant- accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual 7 (2022) 6 SCC 599 24 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 33. Hence, in Kahkashan Kausar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the absence of any specific and attributed role to the accused, it would be manifestly unjust to compel them to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial on the basis of vague, general, and omnibus allegations. The Court emphasised that criminal law cannot be permitted to operate mechanically so as to subject persons to prosecution merely by virtue of their relationship or association, without distinct allegations disclosing individual culpability. Recognising that even a criminal trial culminating in acquittal leaves deep and irreparable scars upon the accused, the Court cautioned that such prosecutions, lacking particularised accusations, amount to abuse of process and must be discouraged in the interests of justice. 34. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy8, at paragraph No.7 it is held as under: “7. The second limb of Mr Mookerjee's argument is that in any event the High Court could not take upon itself the task of assessing or appreciating the weight of material on the record in order to find whether any charges could be legitimately framed against the respondents. So long as there is some material on the record to connect the accused with the crime, says the learned counsel, the case must go on and the High Court has no jurisdiction to put a precipitate or premature end to the proceedings on the belief that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. This, in our opinion, is too broad a proposition to accept. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2 of 1974, provides that: “If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.” 8 (1977) 2 SCC 699 25 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J This section is contained in Chapter 18 called “Trial Before a Court of Session”. It is clear from the provision that the Sessions Court has the power to discharge an accused if after perusing the record and hearing the parties he comes to the conclusion, for reasons to be recorded, that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The object of the provision which requires the Sessions Judge to record his reasons is to enable the superior court to examine the correctness of the reasons for which the Sessions Judge has held that there is or is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The High Court therefore is entitled to go into the reasons given by the Sessions Judge in support of his order and to determine for itself whether the order is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 482 of the New Code, which corresponds to Section 561-A of the Code of 1898, provides that: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or other wise to secure the ends of justice.” In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realisation of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice, between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction.” 35. Accordingly, in L.Muniswamy supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that the proposition that criminal proceedings must invariably continue so long as some material exists on record to link the accused with the offence is far too broad and cannot be accepted as an inflexible rule. Referring to Section 227 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ the Court clarified that a Sessions Court is fully empowered to discharge an accused where, upon consideration of the record and after hearing both sides, it finds that there is 26 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J no sufficient ground for proceeding, and that the requirement of recording reasons enables effective scrutiny by superior courts. The Court further emphasised that the inherent powers preserved under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ corresponding to Section 561-A of the old Cr.P.C., vest the High Court with ample authority to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court or where the ends of justice so demand. It was underscored that such inherent jurisdiction exists to ensure that judicial proceedings do not degenerate into instruments of harassment or persecution, and that in cases where the prosecution is manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or founded upon infirm material, the High Court would be justified in intervening to secure justice, for the ends of justice are paramount and transcend the mere mechanical application of procedural law. 36. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat9, at paragraph Nos.16 & 19 it is held as under: “16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the complainant's FIR. Even if the charge-sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge-sheet, documents, etc. or not. 19. The appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the appellant and Respondent 4 complainant, and is still sub judice. In the said suit, the appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by the trial court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the appellant and 9 (2011) 7 SCC 59 27 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J Respondent 4 complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the appellant as neither the complainant had to receive the money nor was he in any way instrumental to telecast “God TV” in certain areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. The appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law.” 37. Thus, in Joseph Salvaraj A. supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even where a charge sheet has been filed, the High Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction to examine whether the allegations contained in the FIR, charge sheet and accompanying material disclose the commission of any offence even prima facie. The Court observed that where, upon a holistic conspectus of the statutory provisions invoked and the material placed on record, no offence is made out and the accused appears to be wholly unconnected with the alleged transaction, compelling him to undergo the protracted ordeal of a criminal prosecution would be wholly unjustified. Emphasising that criminal law cannot be permitted to operate as an instrument of harassment or humiliation, particularly where parallel civil proceedings are already pending and there exists no privity of contract or cause of action against the accused, the Court held that continuance of such prosecution would amount to a gross abuse of the process of the Court and is impermissible in law. 38. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad 10 , at paragraph Nos.17 to 20 it is held as under: “17. Undoubtedly, the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These inherent powers of the High Court are meant to act ex debito justitiae to do 10 (2009) 6 SCC 351 28 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J real and substantial justice, for the administration of which alone it exists, or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 18. Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised in the following category of cases: (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 19. This Court time and again has observed that the extraordinary power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The Court would be justified in exercising the power when it is imperative to exercise the power in order to prevent injustice. In order to understand the nature and scope of power under Section 482 CrPC it has become necessary to recapitulate the ratio of the decided cases. 20. Reference to the following cases would reveal that the Courts have consistently taken the view that they must use the court's extraordinary power only to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. We have largely inherited the provisions of inherent powers from the English jurisprudence, therefore the principles decided by the English courts would be of relevance for us. It is generally agreed that the Crown Court has inherent power to protect its process from abuse. The English courts have also used inherent power to achieve the same objective.” 39. Hence, In A. Ravishankar Prasad supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ exercisable ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The Court reiterated that such inherent jurisdiction may be invoked only in three contingencies, namely, to give effect to an order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of Court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice, and that the exercise of this extraordinary power must be undertaken sparingly, with great care and circumspection, and only when its invocation is imperative to prevent manifest injustice. Emphasising the jurisprudential origins of inherent powers in English law, the Court observed that courts are vested with such authority to protect the integrity of their processes and to ensure that judicial proceedings are not employed as instruments of oppression or injustice, underscoring that the 29 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J consistent and settled judicial approach mandates the use of inherent powers solely for advancing justice and safeguarding the purity of the judicial process. 40. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa11, at paragraph Nos.6 & 9 it is held as under: “6. Exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code in a case of this nature is the exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new powers on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the court does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. 11 (2002) 3 SCC 89 30 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See : Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892] , and Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1] .) It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case 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 has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or 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. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.” 41. Ergo, in M. Devendrappa supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is an exception and not the rule, the provision being declaratory in nature and merely preservative of the inherent powers traditionally vested in the High 31 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J Court. The Court held that such jurisdiction may be exercised only to give effect to an order under ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice, and that no inflexible or exhaustive formula can govern its exercise. While underscoring that the inherent power is of the widest amplitude and exists ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice, the Court sounded a clear note of restraint, cautioning that this power must be exercised sparingly, on sound judicial principles, and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It was emphasised that the High Court should not undertake a meticulous analysis of evidence or assess probabilities with a view to determining the likelihood of conviction, and that allegations of mala fides alone cannot constitute a valid basis for quashing proceedings. The Court clarified that interference is warranted only where the complaint, read as a whole, discloses no offence or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive, and that the inherent jurisdiction exists to prevent judicial proceedings from degenerating into instruments of injustice, while ensuring that bona fide prosecutions are permitted to proceed in accordance with law. 42. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma12, at paragraph Nos.18 & 18.1 it is held as under: “18. However, at the same time, if it is found that the subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. In that case, the complaint case will proceed further in accordance with the provisions of the CrPC. 12 (2021) 5 SCC 524 32 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 18.1. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon the accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed.” 43. Ergo, in Kapil Agarwal supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where a subsequent FIR is found to be manifestly abusive of the process of law or has been instituted with the sole object of harassing the accused, the High Court would be fully justified in quashing such proceedings in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or its inherent powers under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The Court reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction preserved under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and the constitutional power under Article 226 are designed to serve the salutary purpose of ensuring that criminal proceedings do not degenerate into a weapon of oppression, harassment, or undue pressure upon the accused, and that once the Court is satisfied that the continuation of such proceedings constitutes an abuse of process, it is not only empowered but duty-bound to intervene and quash the same in order to secure the ends of justice. 44. The genesis of the present proceedings lies in a complaint lodged on 18.02.2011 before the Narasannapeta Police Station, Srikakulam District, by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, BRR Vamsadhara Project, Narasannapeta, alleging that three private firms, namely (1) Aditya Teja Mechanical Works, Hyderabad, (2) Satyasai Industrial and Engineering Company, Srikakulam, and (3) M/s. Manikanta Fabricators, Hyderabad, who were entrusted with the 33 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J supply of Screw Gear Shutters and other material, had allegedly caused a wrongful loss of Rs.19,65,38,456/- to the State exchequer. On the basis of the said complaint, a crime was registered as Crime No.24/2011 under the relevant provisions of law, which was subsequently transferred to the CID for further investigation, and after an extensive investigation spanning nearly eight years, a charge sheet came to be filed on 06.06.2019, arraying the Petitioner as Accused No.12 in C.C.No.36/2019. It is the case of the Petitioner that his implication as an accused in the said charge sheet is wholly false, motivated, and without any legal or factual basis, and that the continuation of the proceedings against him constitutes a gross abuse of the process of law. 45. Before proceeding to examine the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties, it is considered appropriate and necessary to set out the legal principles governing the exercise of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ which provides that nothing in ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The scope and ambit of this provision has been elaborately considered and comprehensively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a long and distinguished line of authoritative decisions. 34 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 46. In the celebrated and oft-cited decision in R.P. Kapur supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the broad categories of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court should be exercised to quash criminal proceedings, which include cases where the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of the Court, where the allegations in the First Information Report or the charge sheet, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, and where the allegations are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just and proper conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 47. This principle was further elaborated, refined, and crystallised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision in Bhajan Lal supra, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down seven broad categories of cases in which the power under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ or Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice, and which remain to this day the definitive and authoritative statement of the law on this subject. The principle governing the exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction, as consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that the power must be exercised sparingly, carefully, and with great circumspection and caution, but must nonetheless be exercised unhesitatingly and decisively whenever the facts and circumstances of a particular case 35 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J clearly and unambiguously bring it within the categories identified in the said decisions, so as to prevent the Courts’ processes from being weaponised as an instrument of oppression, harassment, or persecution of innocent persons. 48. It is a well-settled proposition of law, affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. supra, that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ to quash criminal proceedings, the High Court is duty-bound to look at the charge sheet or complaint as a whole, and must consider whether the allegations made therein, read in their entirety and in their proper context, disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the particular accused whose proceedings are sought to be quashed. It is equally well established that at this stage, the Court is not called upon to weigh the evidence meticulously, assess the credibility of witnesses, or embark upon an exercise of appreciation of evidence as if it were the Trial Court, since these are matters exclusively within the domain of the learned Trial Court. 49. However, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made abundantly clear in Dinesh Dutt Joshi supra, the inherent power under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ can and must be exercised where the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an exercise in futility, and would amount to nothing more than an abuse of the process of the Court and a grave miscarriage of justice. 36 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 50. Furthermore, in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed with characteristic clarity and precision that the process of the Court cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of oppression or needless harassment, and that a person who is sought to be tried for an offence which, on the face of it, he could not have committed, deserves to have the proceedings against him quashed in order to spare him the agony, expense, and harassment of a prolonged and futile trial. This Court, bearing the aforesaid principles firmly in mind, proceeds to examine the facts and circumstances of the present case. 51. Having carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and having perused the charge sheet and the other material placed on record with the anxious attention that the gravity and importance of the matter demands, this Court is of the considered and firm opinion that the chronological facts of this case, as established by the undisputed and unimpeachable documentary evidence on record, conclusively and irrefutably demonstrate the impossibility of the Petitioner’s involvement in the alleged criminal conspiracy during the period when the offences are alleged to have been committed. 52. The relevant chronology, which is not seriously disputed by either side, is: The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer by order dated 29.06.2005 and was accordingly relieved from his posting as Assistant 37 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J Engineer in the Vamsadhara Project Maintenance Division, Narasannapeta, Srikakulam District, on 07.07.2005. He thereupon joined as I/C Deputy Executive Engineer in the Special Minor Irrigation Division, Irrigation Circle, Visakhapatnam. The decision to procure and install Screw Gear Shutters in the Vamsadhara Project Left Main Canal was taken only on 15.04.2006, when the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam, issued Memo No.VPC/DB/3709 directing all Executive Engineers of the Circle to prepare and submit detailed estimates for S.G. Shutters. 53. The charge sheet itself, at paragraph No.60, unequivocally and categorically states that the offences took place between the years 2006 and 2009. The Petitioner retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2006. These facts, taken together, compellingly and irresistibly lead to the conclusion that when the alleged offences were committed, the Petitioner was not only not posted in the Vamsadhara Project Circle but had indeed retired from service altogether, and therefore had neither the opportunity, the authority, nor the means to participate in the preparation of fraudulent estimates for the works in question. 54. This Court is constrained to observe that the prosecution’s case against the Petitioner is afflicted with a fundamental and irreconcilable internal contradiction that strikes at the very root of the charge sheet in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. On the one hand, the charge sheet avers that the offences took place between 2006 and 2009, and that the decision to install 38 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J S.G. Shutters was taken only on 15.04.2006. On the other hand, the prosecution contends that the Petitioner, who was transferred out of the Vamsadhara Project Circle on 07.07.2005, nearly nine months before even the decision to install the shutters was taken, was responsible for preparing estimates with inflated rates in connection with the said project. This irreconcilable contradiction cannot be explained away by the prosecution’s argument that the estimates were prepared in 2005 during the Petitioner’s working period, since, as already noted, the decision to install the shutters and the instruction to prepare estimates were issued only on 15.04.2006. The preparation of estimates for a project that had not yet been conceived, planned, or sanctioned is, quite plainly, a factual and logical impossibility. 55. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pepsi Foods Ltd. supra, held with great clarity that when the allegations in the charge sheet are inherently improbable, contradictory, and logically impossible, the High Court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to quash the proceedings in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The present case falls squarely and unambiguously within the principle so enunciated. 56. This Court has perused the charge sheet with great care and attention, and is constrained to note that there is no specific, particularised, or individualised allegation against the Petitioner that identifies any particular overt act, any specific document, any identifiable estimate, or any particular 39 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J agreement that can be directly, exclusively, and personally attributed to the Petitioner as a consequence of his own individual conduct and participation. The reference to the Petitioner in the charge sheet is of a general, omnibus, and undifferentiated character, which merely groups him together with a large number of other accused persons described as Assistant Engineers who prepared estimates without following the prescribed procedure, without any specific identification of which estimates were prepared by the Petitioner, in respect of which works, on which dates, and with what specific reference to the fraudulent rate structure. 57. It is a well-settled principle of criminal law that a charge sheet must disclose specific and particularised allegations against each individual accused that are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of personal involvement in the commission of the offence alleged. In Kahkashan Kausar supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that vague, general, and omnibus allegations against an accused, without specific particulars of the overt acts attributed to him, are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings, and that where such is the nature of the charge sheet, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash the same. The application of this principle to the facts of the present case leaves little room for doubt that the charge sheet against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 58. The law recognises and gives full effect to the principle that a person cannot be held criminally liable for an act that he had no capacity, authority, or 40 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J opportunity to commit by reason of his physical absence from the scene of the alleged offence or by reason of other circumstances that render his participation a factual impossibility. This principle, which finds its roots in the most elementary concepts of criminal jurisprudence, was eloquently articulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Muniswamy supra, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the High Court would be well justified in quashing criminal proceedings where the continuance of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice, particularly where the allegations against the accused are of such a nature that no conviction could possibly result even if they were accepted in their entirety. 59. In the instant case, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt or controversy that the Petitioner was transferred out of the Vamsadhara Project Circle on 07.07.2005, that the decision to install S.G. Shutters and prepare estimates was taken only on 15.04.2006, and that the offences are alleged to have been committed between 2006 and 2009. These undisputed facts, taken together, place the Petitioner’s involvement in the realm of absolute factual impossibility, and it would be a travesty of justice of the most grievous kind to permit the Petitioner to be dragged through the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial in respect of offences that he could not conceivably have committed. 41 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 60. This Court takes particular and careful note of the significant and highly material circumstance that the State Government itself, while initiating disciplinary proceedings against the officers found to be responsible for the alleged fraud vide G.O.Rt.No.403, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2)) Department, dated 31.03.2012, did not include the name of the Petitioner in the list of 34 officers against whom such proceedings were directed, and that no departmental action of any kind was ever initiated against the Petitioner at any point of time. 61. It is also noteworthy that the Petitioner was allowed to retire from service honourably on 30.09.2006 without any adverse action, charge memo, or suspension order being passed against him. The conduct of a party is always a relevant and admissible consideration in evaluating the credibility and bona fides of its case, and in the present case, the Government’s own conduct in not initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and in permitting him to retire without any adverse action speaks volumes about the true nature of his alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy. 62. While this Court is fully cognizant of the legal distinction between departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution, and does not hold that the absence of the former bars the latter, it is nonetheless of the view that in the peculiar and exceptional facts and circumstances of the present case, the Government’s own conduct constitutes a highly material and significant circumstance that lends powerful corroboration to the Petitioner’s case that his 42 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J implication in the crime was false, motivated, and unsupported by any credible evidence. 63. This Court attaches considerable significance to the admitted and undisputed fact that the Petitioner’s name did not find mention in the original complaint lodged by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, BRR Vamsadhara Project, on 09.02.2011 before the Narasannapeta Police Station. The complainant, who was a senior Engineering official of the Department and who was intimately familiar with the functioning of the project, the identities of the officers involved, and the nature of the alleged fraud, did not consider the Petitioner to be in any manner connected with or responsible for the alleged criminal conspiracy. The Petitioner’s name was subsequently introduced during the course of investigation, allegedly on the basis of oral statements of witnesses and seized documents. 64. However, as this Court has already observed, the charge sheet contains no specific and particularised allegation against the Petitioner identifying any concrete overt act attributable to him. In these circumstances, the addition of the Petitioner’s name as an accused during the course of investigation, in the conspicuous absence of any credible and specific evidence of his personal involvement, gives rise to a reasonable and legitimate inference that his implication was motivated by considerations other than the honest and bona fide pursuit of justice. 43 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Joseph Salvaraj A. supra, has held that where the name of an accused was not mentioned in the original complaint and was added only during investigation without any specific and credible evidence of his involvement, and where the allegations against him are of a vague and general nature, the High Court is justified in exercising its inherent power to quash the proceedings against such accused. 66. This Court cannot, in good conscience, ignore the profoundly important circumstance that the Petitioner is a man of 80 years of age, a retired Government servant who served the State of Andhra Pradesh with dedication and commitment for over three decades, and who is now, in the twilight of his life, being compelled to face the ignominy, trauma, expense, and harassment of a prolonged criminal trial in respect of offences that this Court has found to be based on no credible evidence of his personal involvement and which this Court has determined he could not conceivably have committed given the undisputed chronological facts of the case. 67. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in A. Ravishankar Prasad supra, while discussing the scope and ambit of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ observed with great wisdom and compassion that the power is to be used to secure the ends of justice, and that the ends of justice are not served, but are indeed defeated, when innocent persons are subjected to the ordeal of criminal trials in respect of offences they did not commit. 44 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J 68. Furthermore, in M. Devendrappa supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, must always be guided by the paramount considerations of justice, fairness, and the prevention of abuse of the process of the Court, and must not hesitate to exercise its power when the continuance of proceedings would result in manifest injustice to the accused. The continuance of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner in the present case, given all the facts and circumstances that this Court has elaborately considered and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, would constitute precisely such a manifest injustice, and this Court is therefore of the firm and unhesitating opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks. 69. This Court has given its most careful and anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to the effect that the estimates in question were prepared in the year 2005 during the Petitioner’s working period at Narasannapeta, and that the Petitioner’s transfer subsequent to the preparation of such estimates does not absolve him of criminal liability. This argument, while superficially attractive, does not withstand scrutiny for the following reasons. First, the charge sheet itself does not allege that the Petitioner prepared any estimates in the year 2005. The charge sheet avers that the offences took place between 2006 and 2009, and paragraph 64 of the charge sheet specifically states that the offences took place during the years 2006 and 2007. Second, the original complaint itself 45 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J states that the Superintending Engineer, Vamsadhara Project, instructed all Executive Engineers of the Circle to prepare and submit estimates for S.G. Shutters vide Memo No.VPC/DB/3709 dated 15.04.2006, which means that the preparation of estimates could not have commenced prior to that date. Third, as the Petitioner had already been transferred on 07.07.2005, he had neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to prepare estimates for works falling within the Vamsadhara Project Circle after that date. Fourth, the prosecution’s contention that the estimates were prepared in 2005 is not only not supported by the charge sheet but is directly contradicted by it, and it is well settled that the prosecution cannot be permitted to travel beyond the charge sheet and set up a case that is fundamentally different from and inconsistent with the case made out in the charge sheet. 70. Having considered all the facts, circumstances, contentions, and legal principles that have been discussed and elaborated in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the clear, firm, and unambiguous opinion that the present case satisfies several of the categories identified in Bhajan Lal supra as warranting the exercise of the inherent power of quashing. Specifically, this Court finds that the allegations made in the charge sheet, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not make out any offence against the Petitioner, inasmuch as the Petitioner was not posted in the Vamsadhara Project Circle at the time when the offences are alleged to have been 46 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J committed, and there is no specific and particularised allegation of any overt act attributable personally and exclusively to the Petitioner. 71. This Court further finds that the allegations against the Petitioner are so absurd and inherently improbable, having regard to the undisputed chronological facts of the case, that no prudent person directing himself properly on the law and the evidence could ever reach the conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner. 72. It is additionally found that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner constitutes a gross abuse of the process of the Court and occasions a manifest miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as it subjects an innocent, aged, and retired Government servant to the ordeal of a prolonged criminal trial in respect of offences he could not have committed, without any credible, specific, or legally sufficient evidence of his personal involvement. The cumulative effect of these findings is that the Criminal Petition is liable to be allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioner in C.C.No.36/2019 are liable to be quashed. 73. Before concluding, this Court considers it appropriate to make clear that the order of quashing passed herein operates exclusively and solely in relation to the Petitioner, Peruri Sreerama Murthy, who is arrayed as Accused No.12 in C.C.No.36/2019, and does not in any manner affect, prejudice, or interfere with the continuation of the proceedings against the other accused persons named in the said charge sheet. The findings recorded in this order are based 47 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J entirely and exclusively on the specific and peculiar facts and circumstances pertaining to the Petitioner, namely his transfer from the Vamsadhara Project Circle prior to the commission of the alleged offences, the absence of any specific allegation against him in the charge sheet, the Government’s failure to initiate departmental proceedings against him, and the absence of his name from the original complaint, and are not intended to and do not express any opinion on the guilt or innocence of any other accused, or on the merits of the prosecution’s case against them. It is made unequivocally clear that the learned Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of C.C.No.36/2019 against all the remaining accused in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 74. Before parting with this matter, this Court considers it its solemn duty to record its deep and unequivocal concern at the manner in which the Petitioner, a retired Government servant of advanced age who served the State with dedication throughout his working life, has been subjected to the ignominy and harassment of criminal prosecution on the basis of allegations that are, as this Court has found, factually impossible, legally unsustainable, and devoid of any credible evidentiary foundation. The Courts of this country have repeatedly and emphatically declared that the criminal process must not be permitted to be weaponised as an instrument of harassment, persecution, or vendetta against innocent persons, and that it is the constitutional and legal obligation of the High Court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of 48 Crl.P.No.2596 of 2021 06.04.2026 Dr.YLR,J citizens and the sentinel of justice, to intervene decisively and without hesitation whenever the process of the Court is sought to be abused in this manner. 75. 75. In the result, for all the foregoing reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings pending against the Petitioner, Peruri Sreerama Murthy (Accused No.12), in C.C.No.36/2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, and the charge sheet against the Petitioner stands quashed accordingly. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 06.04.2026 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o VTS