APHC010142612021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2256/2021 Between: S. Munirathnam ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused in Cr.No.255/2020 of Pakala Police Station, Chittoor District, for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a) read with Section 34(1)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 ( for short “Act”). 2. The petitioner herein is the accused. The respondent herein is the complainant. It is alleged that on 24.12.2020, in the evening hours, at about 6:30 p.m., the Sub-Inspector, Pakala Police Station, along with his staff proceeded to the scene of offence situated in a road, near Thotapalli Cross and conducted vehicle checking, during which, the Police found a person, carrying a white bag, travelling from Pakala to Konappareddypalli. Upon seeing the Police, he ran away, leaving the said white bag on the road. When the Police tried to apprehend him, he escaped from them and when the police opened the white bag, they found six 180 ML Liquor bottles of different brands and seized the same under the cover of property seizure report. Basing on seizure report, a case in Cr.No.255 of 3 2020 was registered by the Pakala Police Station under A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020, against the petitioner herein. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused is innocent of the offences much less the alleged offences initiated alleged against him and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. He submits that basing on the information given by some unknown persons, the Police registered the crime against the petitioner/accused. He further submits that the liquor bottles found by the police in the bag are not illicit liquor bottles and are readily available in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the liquor bottles found are neither prohibited nor illegally imported into the State. He further submits that even if the allegations are taken to be true at their face value, no case is made out against the petitioner. In Support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Gazette Notification vide G.O.Ms.NO.411, Revenue (Excise-II), dated 24.09.2019) and G.O.Ms.No.310, Revenue (Excise) Department, dated 26.10.2020, wherein it is stated that a person may have in his possession the maximum quantity of intoxicants at a time without license. Therefore, initiation of crime 4 proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but illegal and an abuse of process and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner/accused is sufficient to hold that the petitioner/accused has committed the offence much less the alleged offences under Sections 34(a) read with Section 34(1)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Amendment) Act, 2020 and requested to dismiss the petition. 6. When the Criminal Petition came up for hearing on 08.04.2021, this Court has passed the following order: “…In view of the fact that the total amount of alcohol that is said to have been seized does not cross 2 liters, it would be appropriate to stay further proceedings in Crime No.255 of 2020 of Pakala Police Station, Chittoor District, including arrest of the petitioner.” 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the Cr.No.255/2020 of Pakala Police Station, Chittoor, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 5 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 6 (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that 7 the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2” 11. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3 ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 13. A perusal of the said complaint, it can be seen that when the Sub-Inspector, Pakala Police Station, along with his staff, started conducting vehicle checking near Thotapalli Cross, which is situated in a road proceeding from Chittoor to Tirupathi, the petitioner/accused, on seeing police, ran away, by leaving the white bag on the road consisting of 180 ML liquor bottles of different brands. However, the Sub-Inspector, Pakala, on further enquiry through his informer identified the petitioner herein as accused and registered the said criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused. It is very surprising to see that, when it is the case of the complainant that the petitioner/accused, on seeing the police from some distance, left the bag and ran away, the question of identifying the petitioner/accused does not arise. Further, the complainant did not even mention the name of the informer in the 9 said complaint. In view of the same, as the question of identifying the petitioner does not arise in the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused would amount to abuse of process of the Court. As such, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in Cr.No.255 of 2020 of Pakala Police Station, Chittoor District. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2025 ANS 10 186 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2256/2021 Date: 06.01.2025 ANS 11