IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2300 & 2421 OF 2021 CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2300 OF 2021 Between: 1. B.V.Ramana Reddy, S/o B.Pai Reddy, aged about 46 years, Occ- Business, R/o M.G.Nagar, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2. G.Prema, W/o G.Venkata Chalapathi, aged about 52 yews, Occ- Business, R/o Ratakonda Redappa Naidu Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District 3. G.Venkata Chalapathi, S/o Venkataramanappa Naidu, aged about 58 years, Occ- Business, R/o R/o Ratakonda Redappa Naidu Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 to 3 AND 1. The State, Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Madanapalli, Chittoor District rep by its P.P. High Court of A.P. At Amaravathi. 2. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, AC, Vigilance, Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Quash the Proceedings in Crime No. 145/2021(139/2021) Dated 31-3-2021 on the file of the Prohibition and Excise Station (Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau) Madanapalle, Chittoor District. I.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crime No 145/2021(139/2021) Dated 31-3-2021 On the file of the Proh. Excise Station (Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau) Madanapalle, Chittoor District including the arrest of the petitioners. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2421 OF 2021 Between: G.Venkata Chalapathi, S/o Venkataramanappa Naidu, aged about 58 years, Occ- Business, R/o R/o Ratakonda Redappa Naidu Colony, Madanapalle, Chittoor District ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Madanapalli, Chittoor District rep by its P.P. High Court of A.P. At Amaravathi. 2. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, AC, Vigilance, Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to Quash the Proceedings in Crime No. 69 /2021 Dated 1-4-2021 On the file of the II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Crime No. 69 /2021 Dated 1-4-2021 On the file of the II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor District including the arrest of the petitioner This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Ganga Rami Reddy,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondents The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : 1 -APHC010145012021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / t [3333] \ • MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2300/2021 Between: B.v.ramana Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petltloner/accused(S): 1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2421/2021 Between: G.venkata Chalapathi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The Station House Officer and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 s'* r ^ The Court made the following: >--r/ COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition No.2300 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A1 to 3 in crime.No.145 of 2021, dated 31.03.2021 of the Prohibition & Excise Station, Madanapalle, Chittoor, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 36 (b) (c) and 50-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1968 read with Rule 30 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of License) Rules, 2017( in short Rules, 2017). Criminal Petition No.2421 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 crime No.69 of 2021 of the Madanapalle II Town Police Station, Chittoor, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). Petitioners in Crl.P.No.2300 of 2021 herein are the accused 2. Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. The facts of the case are as follows: 3. The 2"^ petitioner/A2 is the license holder of 2B license and owner of the Bar named M/s. Narasimha Bar and Restaurant at 3 nd Madanapalle town. The 3 petitioner/A3 is the husband of the 2 petitioner and petitioner/A1 is the Nowkar working in the said Bar. On 31.03.2021, at about 9-20 P.M, as per the instructions of nd Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise, Chittoor, the 2 respondent along with his staff, conducted decoy operation in the Bar owned by the 2"^ petitioner. Two persons of the 2^^ respondent staff, as customers, came to the bar and purchased one 375 Ml Mansion House Brandy and two beer bottles for consumption in the bar premises. After purchase they came from the bar. Then Prohibition and Excise Inspector, accompanied by the two persons and his staff, entered into the bar, on the allegation that parcel sales are doing and verified liquor and beer bottles and seized the three bottles and informed to Nowkars that selling liquor and beer in parcel is an offence and explained the grounds of arrest. It is further alleged that at that stage the 3'^ petitioner/A3 obstructed the Inspector, while discharging his duties and forcefully taken away the Nowkars without signing the Special report and Inspection report. Thereafter, the 2*''^ respondent went to 1®‘ respondent and handed over the seized property and concerned records. The 1^* respondent registered the case in Cr.No. 145/2021 (139/2021) under Section 36(b) (c) and 50A of A.P. Excise Act 1968 r/w Rule 30 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and conditions of license) Rules, 4 P r 2017. Crl.P.No.2300 of 2021 has been filed to quash the said Cr.No.145 of 2021 As the 3'^'^ petitioner obstructed the respondent from discharging his duty, he lodged complaint against the 3'^'^ petitioner. On the compliant given by the 2"*^ respondent, the Madanapalli II Town Police Station registered the case in Crime No.69 of 2021 against the 3'^'^ petitioner for the offences under Sections 353, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC in respect of the very same incident. Crl.P.No.2421 has been filed to quash the said Cr.No.69 of 2021. As Crime No.145 of 2021 and 69 of 2021 (referred supra) 4. arose from the same incident, these petitions are heard and disposed of by way of a common order. 5. The present petitions are filed to quash the FIR on the ground that the petitioners/AI, A2 & A3 are innocent of the offences, and they did not commit any office much less the offences alleged against them and they were falsely implicated in the present crimes. It is submitted that the petitioners have not violated any of the conditions prescribed under the 2B licence and they have only sold one 375 Ml Mansion House Brandy and two beer bottles, which were opened on the premises and served to the persons who entered the bar, for consumption solely within the premises. There has been no violation of the 2B licence, or has the liquor been sold 5 % or supplied outside the bar premises. Prima facie, the allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute the offences under Section 36(b) (c) and 50A of A.P. Excise Act 1968 r/w Rule 30 of A.P. Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and conditions of license) Rules, 2017. Therefore, prays this Court to quash the present petitions. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished a copy of the office orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (FAC), Kurnool vide Rc.No.B1/35/2021 dated 23.09.2021. Wherein, it is stated that after duly examining the matter with reference to the report submitted by the prohibition & Excise Inspector, Chittoor and the explanation submitted by the licensee of the Said Bar, a lenient view was taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (FAC), Kurnool and dropped departmental action without prejudice to the criminal proceedings. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Section 36(b) (c) and 50A of A.P. Excise Act 1968 r/w Rule 30 of A.P. Excise (Grant 6 of License of Selling by Bar and conditions of license) Rules, 2017 and Sections 353, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 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; 9. “Whether the crime registered against the petitioners FIR crime No.145 of 2021 dated 31.03.2021 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise Station Madanapalle, Chittoor District and Crime No.69 of 2021, dated 01.04.2021 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittor District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.T m The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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 thp absence of such power the administration 10. 7 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. 11. 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 In "R.P. Kapur V. State of Punjab the following principles: the Apex Court laid down (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (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. 12. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the AIR 1960 SC 866 8 process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^’’ Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine 13. the case on hand. On 31.03.2021 at about 9.20 p.m. the Prohibition and Excise 14. Inspector and Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, A.C. Vigilance Squad, Chittoor along with their staff conducted decoy operation at M/s. Narasimha Restaurant and Bar, Madanapalle, which is owned ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 9 by petitioner No.2 and found that the petitioners are selling the liquor in parcel, such selling liquor and beer in parcel is an offence, thereby they violated condition prescribed under 2B licence and Rules 2017. Therefore, a show cause notice vide L.No.CT/11/2B/A/2017-22 dated 06.04.2021 has been issued to petitioner No.2, licensee of M/s. Narasimha Restaurant and Bar, Madanapalle, for which, petitioner No.2 submitted her explanation stating that a case was booked against her with malafide intention. After examining the said explanation, a report has been called from Prohibition and Excise Inspector, APSBCL Depot, Madanapalli. On 04.08.2021, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, APSBCL, Chittoor Deprot-lll, Madanapalle submitted his report, wherein it is stated as follows: “ there are no independent witness to examine in this case to conclude whether the case booked on the said bar with malafide intentions or not, as represented by the licensee of the bar. Further, he stated that on 31.07.2021 at 02.30 p.m. and 01.08.2021 at 6.30 p.m. he had conducted the decoy operations to know whether the parcel sales are conducting by the staff of the above bar or not and didn’t found any parcel sales i.e. sale of liquor bottles and beer bottles for removing it outside the licensed premises.” Further, in the said report, it is stated as follows: “ he has addressed the Depot Manager, APSBCL, Depot, Madanapalli and requested to furnish the details of the APSBCL RO/Bar to which the seized contraband in this case was supplied. Accordingly, the Depot Manager, APSBCL Depot, Madanapalli has replied that as the Heal label affixed was tampered/removed and heal code can’t be established, the details called for-dispatch of the said brands from on 10 Depot can’t be fetched in the system. Similarly in this case of beer brands as the beer bottles are sold using brand bar code, the details also can’t be found out. Therefore, it is not possible to furnish the details to which shop/Bar the seized contraband was supplied.” Basing on the said report. Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition 15. and Excise (FAC), Kurnool came to the conclusion that there are no independent witness to examine in the present case to conclude whether the case booked on the said bar is with malafide intentions or not and that it is not possible to state that the contraband seized in the present case pertaining to the bar of petitioner No.2 viz. M/s. Narasimha Restaurant and Bar, Madanapalli and taking lenient view has dropped the departmental action. On perusal of the proceedings issued by the Deputy 16. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Kurnool, it can be understood that as the respondents authorities did not find any parcel sales i.e. sale of liquor bottles and beer bottles by removing it outside the licensed premises in the decoy operations conducted on 31.07.2021 and as well as basing on the report of Depot Manager that the Heal label affixed tampered/removed, because of which heal code cannot established and the details with regard to dispatch of the alleged brands from Depot can’t be fetched in the system, he has dropped the departmental proceedings against the Bar owned by respondent No.2. As the departmental proceedings are dropped. continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.2300 of 2021 would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the said Crl.P.No.2300 of 2021 deserves to be allowed. 17. The allegation against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2421 of 2021 is only that he obstructed respondent No.2 from discharging his duties. As the Crl.P.No.2300 of 2021 is allowed, the other Crl.P.No.2421 of 2021 also deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed, by quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in crime No. 145 of 18. 2021 dated 31.03.2021 on the file of the Prohibition & Excise Station (Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau) Madanapalle, Chittoor District and in Crime No.69 of 2021, dated 01.04.2021 on the file of the II Town Police Station, Madanapalle, Chittor District. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Prohibition and Excise Station (Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau) Madanapalle, Chittoor District. 2. The Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Madanapalli, Chittoor District 3. One CC to SRI. P GANGA RAMI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies \ HIGH COURT DATED: 06/01/2025 COMMON ORDER CRLP.No.2300 and 2421 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS