IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5080 of 2020 Between: Ammanamanchi Srinivasa Durga Naga Satya Mani Kumar, S/o Ammanamanchi Venkata Ramu, aged 34 years, Occ; Business, D.No. 902, NSC Bose Nagar, Kandrika, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District- 520 015. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,.:Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Amaravati, Through the Station House Officer, Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. 2. R Subramanyeswara Rao, S/o.not known. Aged major, Occ: Police Officer, Special Enforcement bureau, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 quash the proceedings in Crime No. 523/2020 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, dated 29-06-2020 against the Petitioners/Accused. as I.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 . ^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 I mJy’''tee, pleased to stay of all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in Crime No. 523/2020 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, dated 29-06-2020, pending disposal of the quash petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER : / APHC010313452020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5080/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Ammanamanchi Srinivasa Durga Naga Satya Mani Kumar, AND ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S); 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 VS,J Crl.P.No.5080 of 2020 The Court made the following Order; This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/ accused to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.523 of 2020 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. Brief facts of the case are as follows;- 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.06.2020 at about 5:30 p.m. when the Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Team, Rajamahendravaram Urban, along with his staff, was conducting vehicle check at Gaman Road Junction, Diwancheruvu, they noticed three lorries loaded with sand, bearing registration Nos.AP31TW2133, AP16TG4635 and AP05TF1788, at Beejapuri Township near the said Junction. When they went to the spot, sand in the two lorries bearing registration Nos.AP31TW2133 and AP16TG4635 was already unloaded and the lorry bearing No. AP05TF1788 was kept ready for unloading of sand. When questioned, one Pavan Kumar, who was present there, informed the police that he purchased 500 metric tons of sand from one Rama Krishna Naga Venkateswara Rao, a Data Entry Operator, and Chandra Sekhara Rao, for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and was selling the same at higher prices in black market. It was further revealed that Manikumar (the petitioner herein), Dattu, Kasi, M. Venkatesh, Bhadra, B. Appa Rao were also involved in those illegal transactions. Basing on the report of the Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau Team, Crime 3 VS,J Crl.P.No.5080 of 2020 No.523 of 2020 was registered on the file of Bommuru Police Station Rajamahendravaram, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The present petition is filed to quash the said crime No.523 of 2020 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram. 3. On 08.12.2020, this Court granted an interim order, which reads as under: There shall be an Interim order not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, till the next date of hearing”. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint does not disclose prima facie case or any specific allegations against the petitioner and there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner is involved in the illegal sale or transportation of sand. In the absence of any such material, initiating the proceedings against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. He, therefore, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. 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 proceedings in Crime No.523 of 2020 on the file of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, is liable to be quashed against the petitioner by exercising Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 4 VS,J Crl.P.No.5080 of 2020 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 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. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In "R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^ ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles; 8. (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 ^ AIR I960 sc 866 5 VS,J Crl.P.m.5080of2020 (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. 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 Htgh 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^ ” 9. In ‘State of Haryana v. Bhajan Laf”’ 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: 10. (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. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335 6 VS,J Crl.P.No.5080 of 2020 (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. f (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. The offences alleged in the present case are under Sections 406 and 11. 420 I.P.C. and they read as under; (t406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.— Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 420 IPC deals with punishment for “cheating”, which is as follows:- 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be 7 VS,J Crl.P.No.5080 of 2020 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ” The word “cheating” is defined in section 415 IPC and it is as follows: 415. Cheating.— Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat". In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioner is that he is 12. involved in the illegal transaction of purchase of sand in bulk and its sale in the black market at a higher rate. However, from a perusal of the complaint, it is evident that when the Inspector of Police, Special Enforcement Bureau, and his staff noticed unloading of sand from three lorries at the place of incident. one Pavan Kumar, who was present there, confessed to have purchased the sand from one Ramakrishna Naga Venkateswara Rao and Chandra Sekhara Rao. Thus, neither the petitioner was present at the place of incident nor the person present there has spoken about the involvement of the petitioner. Except making a bald allegation that the petitioner is also involved in the illegal transaction of sale of sand in black market, no details are forthcoming from the complaint nor there is any prima facie material to show what was the role played by the petitioner in those illegal transactions. The prime requirement to constitute offence Under Section 420 i.e., dishonest intention 8 VS,J Crl.P.No.5080 of 2020 if or inducement is absent in the complaint. Further, in the absence of any prima facie material and specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner, he cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that continuing the proceedings against the petitioner in the present crime is nothing but abuse of process of law and the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner herein in Crime No.523 of 2020 on the file of Bommuru Police 13. Station, Rajamahendravaram, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. SD/- P.VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIDN OFFICER To 1. The Station House Officer, Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari district. 2. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies TK TAC HIGH COURT DATED:10/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.5080 of 2020 * 0IAPR2C?5 I ^ . Current Section . ^ O' ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION