APHC010140192022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2334/2022 Between: 1. UMMANENI SHANKAR SUDHEER, S/O. U. GANGADHARARAO, 33Y, THE PROJECT MANAGER OF NH 42, MUDIGUBBA BYPASS WORK, M/S. NITHIN SAI CONSTRUCTIONS, SUBASH ROAD, ANANTAPUR, PERMANENT R/O. WESTERN STREET, CHALLAPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHAN DISTRICT. 2. ALAKUNTLA MAHESH, S/O. A. YELLAIAH, 33Y, R/O. PALADUGU VILLAGE, MUTUKURU MANDAL, YADARIBHUNAGIRI DISTRICT. TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUDIGUBBA P.S, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATHI. 2. SRI C KARUNAKAR, TAHSILDAR, MUDIGUBBA MANDAL, MUDIGUBBA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. E ANJANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of Mudigubba Police Station, Ananthapur District for the offences punishable under Sections 285 and 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884. 2. Heard Ms. E.Anjana Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that LOA was issued to Petitioner/Accused No.1 for formation of Bypass road for about 7.749 kms., at Mudigubba Village and while the work was under progress, Petitioner/Accused No.1 entrusted the blasting work to M/s.SLV Enterprises belongs to Petitioner/Accused No.2 and requested Respondent No.2 to issue reference letter to apply for blasting permission to the District Collector and during pendency of the permission, the present complaint has been lodged with a mala fide intention to create hurdles to the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the District Collector had issued proceedings dated 19.05.202 by giving permission for Accused No.1 for carrying the blasting operations. Learned counsel would submit that, no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegations mentioned in the complaint attract the alleged offences against the Petitioners. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that, since the investigation was stayed at the threshold, and in view of the specific allegations leveled against the Petitioners which would prima facie attract the alleged offences against them, the Court cannot quash the proceedings against the Petitioners at this stage. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.25 of 2022 on the file of Mudigubba Police Station, Ananthapur District? Determination by the Court 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling 4 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. As seen from the material placed on record, Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mudigubba vide R.C.No.20/2022/c, dated 23.02.2022 alleging that, the work order in Lr.No.Mudugubba Bypass/NH 42/DCE(NH & CRF)/EE/DEE6/AEE3, dated 20.10.2021 of the Chief Engineer (R&B), NH & CRF, Vijayawada, for formation of Bypass at Mudugubba Village for total 7.749 kms was issued to Petitioner/Accused No.1 on 13.12.2021. While the work was under progress, Petitioner/Accused No.1 entrusted the blasting work to M/s.SLV Enterprises belongs to Petitioner/Accused No.2 to carry out the blasting as per the Explosives Rules and requested Respondent No.2 to issue a reference letter to apply for blasting permission to the District Collector, Ananthapuramu. The complaint would further reveal that, as the Petitioner/Accused No.2 had not shown his licence to submit the proposals to the District Collector, the permission was kept pending. During pendency of the said permission, Petitioner/Accused No.2 had conducted blasting in Bypass road in Sy.No.1081-4B of Gunjepalli Village fields, Near N.S.P.Kottala Village, Mudigubba Mandal at the instance of Petitioner/Accused No.1. 8. Admittedly, without obtaining any permission, Petitioner/Accused No.1 handed over the blasting work to the Petitioner/Accused No.2 and who in turn had taken up the said work. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the District Collector, Sri Sathya Sai District, 5 Puttaparthy had issued proceedings in D.Dis.No.MC4/492/2022 to Petitioner/Accused No.1 to carryout of the blasting operations, the said proceedings were issued on 19.05.2022. Whereas, the present complaint has been lodged on 23.02.2022, which is the alleged date of incident. As such, it can be said that, by the date of alleged incident, no permission has been accorded to the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said blasting work. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others3, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 6 vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to 7 permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” (emphasis supplied) 10. The material placed by the Petitioners is not helpful to prove their innocence at this stage. There are prima facie allegations against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences and the same has to be proved during investigation. In view of the judgment referred to supra, and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, since there is verifiable material and factual aspects to be decided during investigation and in view of the stay of proceedings, there is no progress in the investigation, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by conducting a minute enquiry. There are no merits for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners and hence, the petition deserves dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.01.2025 Dinesh 8 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.2334 of 2022 Dated:02.01.2025 Dinesh