1 APHC010158202021 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: 4004/2021 Between: Malladi Yedukondalu, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. V SAI KUMAR 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.”) to quash of FIR in Crime No.136 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020, Polavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 413 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”) and Section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act (for short „E.C.A”). 2. Petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 to 4. The case of the prosecution is that this is a case of repeatedly dealing with stolen property under E.C.A, with common intention. The incident took place on the intervening night of 3/4-05.2020 at about 01.00 AM, at Smashan Revu ferry point, at the outskirts of Yedurulanka Village of Polavaram Mandal and reported on 04.05.2020 at about 5.15 A.M. Wherein, accused Nos.1 to 4 formed into a smuggling gang and engaged accused Nos.5 to 7 to transport diesel oil, which was purchased from the unknown seashore smugglers on cheaper rate and transporting the same with higher rate, without any permission or license from the Government authorities and with a malafide intention to gain wrongfully. While things stood thus, on receipt of credible information to the District police authority, deputed complainant as a special officer to conduct raid over the illegal diesel oil rocket gang. According to the instructions of the higher officials, the complainant along with his staff conducted a raid and arrested accused No.1, 5 to 7 on the spot. Whereas, accused Nos.2 to 4 escaped from the clutches of the police in darkness. The 3 complainant seized (1) Tanker lorry bearing No.AP36TA6199, (2)Tanker lorry bearing No.AP31TU4649, (3) Hyundai Verna bearing No.AP39AZ0111 (original number) and they used vehicle with No.AP05DP7277 instead of original number, (4) total diesel oil of about 25,000 liters, worth of Rs.17,13,500/-, (5) Samsung galaxy Note 10 plus cell phone belongs to accused No.1, (6) Samsung galaxy A-50 cell phone belongs to A-5 (7) Jio key pad cell phone belongs to A-6 (8) Vivo V-9 cell phone belongs to A-7 and (9) Vehicle records, in the presence of mediators and arrested the accused. The said mediators report, seized property and accused were handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Polavaram Police Station, with an endorsement to register a case with suitable sections and investigate. Hence, FIR No.136 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020, I Polavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, was registered. 3. The present petition is filed to quash the FIR No.136 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020 on the ground that a case under Section 6A of ECA Act, 1955 was registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4, which was filed by the District Collector and the same was tried in V3/CS/AMP/247/2020 dated 23.01.2021. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were involved in fishing activity and can carry 25,000 liters of diesel. The petitioners submitted an application before the Collector for release of their vehicles and the same were released with some conditions and the case is pending before the Revenue authorities. It is submitted that no other previous cases were pending against the petitioners under any section of law. The seven cases mentioned by the police 4 pending against the accused No.2, are related to political issues and all those cases were closed as acquittal, the police only mentioned the crime numbers of the years 2004 to 2013 but have failed to mention the calendar case numbers, this itself shows that the police registered a crime without applying executive mind. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 413 read with 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 6-A of E.C.A. and requested to dismiss the petition. 6. 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 crime registered against the petitioners in FIR No.136 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020, I.Polavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 7. 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 5 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. 8. 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; (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. 9. 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. 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 6 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 Kumar2” 10. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” 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 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 (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. (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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. The main allegation made in the complaint is that the petitioners, with a malafide intention to gain wrongfully, are transporting diesel oil, which was purchased from the unknown seashore smugglers on cheaper rate, and transporting it at a higher rate, without any permission or license from the Government authorities. 8 13. A perusal of the record would show that the Assistant Supply officer, Amalapuram has filed a case under Section 6A of EC Act, 1955 against one Mallidi Venkata Tatareddy and nine others for contravention of clauses of Andhra Pradesh Petroleum Products (Licensing and Regulation of Supplies) order, 1980. Basing on the said compliant, the District Collector, East Godavari, vide proceedings V3/Cs/AMP/247/2020, dated 23.01.2021, ordered confiscation of 25,000 liters of diesel seized by the Assistant Supply Officer, Amalapuram. However, by following the procedure contemplated under Section 6A of EC, Act, the District Collector, East Godavari, while directing the Station House Officer, I.Polavaram, where seized diesel was handed over to release the seized diesel, on the application made by the persons from whom the said diesel was seized, also directed the Assistant Supply Officer to submit a copy of the acknowledgment pertaining to the release of 25,000 liters seized diesel oil and accordingly, based on the application made by the persons, seized diesel was released to the applicants under proper acknowledgment. 14. Coming to the offence under Section 413 of the IPC, It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 413 of the IPC, which reads as under: Section 413 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of habitually buying, selling, or disposing of stolen property. It's a non-bailable, cognizable, and non- compoundable offense. 15. As seen from the extract of the above provision, in the instance case, the ingredients of section 413 IPC does not attract herein, no offence under 9 Section 413 IPC is made out against the petitioners. In view of the proceedings initiated under Section 6A of the EC Act, pursuant to which property seized herein is the diesel, which is not considered to be the stolen property and that the seized property was released under proper acknowledgment vide proceedings of the District Collector, East Godavari. 16. In that view of the matter, as the ingredients of Section 413 of the IPC have not been attracted to the petitioners and no offence is made out against the petitioners under the said section, this Court is of the view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and hence, the proceedings are liable to quashed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.136 of 2020 dated 04.05.2020, I. Polavaram Police Station, East Godavari District initiated against the petitioners, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.01.2025 ANS 10 201 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4004/2021 Date: 06.01.2025 ANS