APHC010327882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Ef FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6829 OF 2025 BETWEEN: Sri Bandimekala Balaramudu, S/o Obulesu, aged about 56 Business, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Yadiki village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. years, Occ ...Petitioner/Accused No.2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Through Station House Officer, Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District. 2. K Prathap Reddy, S/o not known the petitioner. Tahsildar, Yadiki, Ananthapuram District. Aged Major, Occ: ...Respondents/Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C Old Act U/s. 528 of BNSS, 2023 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.51 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District, dated 18-03-2025, for alleged offence under Section 7(1) ECA, against the petitioner/Accused No.2. lA NO: 2 OF 202fi Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including of the petitioner/Accused No. 2 herein in Crime No.51 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District, dated 18-03-2025. , the arrest Counsel for the Petitioner:- SRI. SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondents:- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following order: APHC01O327882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6829/2025 Between: 1.SRI BANDIMEKALA BALARAMUDU, S/0 OBULESU, AGED ABOUT R/0 AMBEDKAR COLONY, YADIKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 56 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI,. THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YADIKI POLICE STATION, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2.K PRATHAP REDDY, S/0 NOT KNOWN THE PETITIONER. AGED MAJOR, OCC TAHSILDAR, YADIKI, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings against 2. the petitioner/accused No. 2 in Crime No.51 of 2025 on the file of Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District, for the alleged offences under Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, both learned counsels submit that a similar matter has already been allowed by this Court in CrI.P.No. 3243 of 2022, vide order dated 3. 31.12.2024. In terms of the same and for reasons alike, this criminal petition is also 4. allowed. The Registry is directed to append a copy of the common order passed in CrI.P.No. 3243 of 2022, vide order dated 31.12.2024, to this order. 5. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ■Jtr //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Station House Officer, Yadiki Police Station, Ananthapuram District. 2. One CC to Sri. Sravan Kumar Naidana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 4. Two C.D Copies. (along with copy of the order dated 31.12.2024 in CrI.P.No.3243 of 2022) HIGH COURT DATED:04/07/2025 ORDER CRL.P.NO. 6829 OF 2025 L > w m 1 09 ^ ^ Current Seciton ^ CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED. f APHC010196132022 \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■t: [3396] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3243/2022 Between: 1.BANDI MEKALA BALARAMUDU,, S/0. OBULESU, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO.12-137, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, YADIKI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, 2 MOMIN RABBANI, S/0. M. ABDUL MUNAF, AGED 40 YEARS, WORKING AS CIVIL SUPPLY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (CSDT), DHONE, NOW AT KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.VIJAYA KUMAR NAIDANA 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, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone for the offence punishable under Section 420 for short ‘Cr.P.C i 2 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^ Commodities Act^ Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Naidana, learned Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Nos.1 and 2. and Section 7(1) of the Essential 2. counsel for the Petitioner and Prosecutor for Respondent 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case and except the confessional statements of Accused Nos.1 and 2, there is no incriminating material to connect the Petitioner/Accused No,3 with the alleged crime. Learned counsel would further submit that, no property has been seized from the Hence, prayed for quashment of the possession of the Petitioner/Accused No.3. proceedings against the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the offence and the same has to be proved during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is. Whether the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 C.C.No. 113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial of First Class, Dhone, jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P. C. ? counsel representing both in Magistrate are liable to be quashed by exercising ^for short‘I.P.C.’ ^ for short ‘EC Act.’ 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 trial court, 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 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others'* is considered as the guiding torch in the 7. exercise of power under Section 482- Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. "air 1992 SC 604 4 (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 uncontroverted 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. i (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 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. are (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too In the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified In embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 5 The present case has been registered alleging that, on 14.01.2019 at about 16.30 hours, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation Respondent No.2 along with the Police and Panchayat Authorities ^ 8. of PDS rice. went near Sivalayam in Nallamekala Village and found PDS rice in 13 plastic Auto bearing No.AP 21 TE bags containing 5.25 kgs of rice in the each bag in an 4102 and Accused Nos.1 and 2. Then they seized the rice in the presence of When questioned, Accused Nos.1 and 2 confessed that they from the card holders of the surrounding villages mediators, procured the said rice illegally to the Petitioner/Accused No.3 for Rs.14/- in the black for Rs.12/- per kg and sell the same Petitioner/Accused No.3 would sell the said rice per kg and the market. As such, the present case Crime No.2/2019 for the offence under the file of in with 34 IPC and Section 7(1) of EC Act on Section 420 read Jaladurgam Police Station has been registered against Accused Nos.1 to 3 of investigation filed charge sheet in the present case. Petitioner/Accused No.3 filed the present petition seeking Police after completion Aggrieved thereby, the quashment of the proceedings against him well as the charge sheet, it As seen from the contents of the complaint as clear that the ,Petitioner/Accused No.3 is alleged to have been the proposed Except the confessional statement of Accused Nos.1 9. IS purchaser of the PDS rice, and 2, there is no iota of evidence to prove committed the alleged offence. Further, no property has been seized from his that the Petitioner/Accused No.3 has of the crime against the and its sale in the In such circumstances, registration the allegation of illegal procurement of PDS rice possession. Petitioner on 6 black market, and continuation of prosecution against him, is not tenable under law. 10. in view of the guideline No.3 in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the Petitioner/Accused As such, this Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore No.3. as the very ingredients of the offending Sections are not attracted against the Petitioner/Accu sed No.3, the criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. 11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.3 in C.C.No.113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. read with 34 Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:31.12.2024 Dinesh