APHC010355782021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5430/2021 Between: Nallagasula Srinu, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. M P V N V SASTRI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_5430_2021 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.655 of 2020, on the file of SEB Police Station, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused and the 2nd respondent is the defacto complainant. The case of the prosecution is that on credible information, he reached to „Mugguralla kaluva‟ of Bandivarigudem village along with his staff and found a person behind the bushes is mixing with the help of a stick in a drum and that upon seeing the police he ran away from the said place. The Police have identified the said person as the petitioner herein and that he had escaped from the scene. The 2nd respondent along with his staff has inspected the area and found two drums containing jiggery wash which is used for manufacturing illicit liquor. After collecting 500 ml of jiggery wash, the complainant had destroyed the remaining. Accordingly, the Police registered a case under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act against the petitioner herein for manufacturing jaggery wash vide FIR.No.655 of 2020 on the file of SEB Police Station, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District. With a plea to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, a person, in contravention of the said act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under the said act, uses, keeps or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy, shall on conviction be punished for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extent up to 8 years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs.2,00,000/- for the first offence and which shall not be less than Rs.5,00,000/- for the second offence. In the instant case, the petitioner herein is in possession of only jaggery wash alone and 3 VS,J Crlp_5430_2021 there is no other material like alum etc., to mix with it. As such, the same does not come under „any material, implements or apparatus‟ as mentioned in the definition of Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act. As continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would abuse to process of court, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to quash the impugned complaint. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 29.09.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “….Therefore, in view of the above discussion, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner pursuant to registration of F.I.R in Crime No.655 of 2020 on the file of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, till the next date of hearing.” 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 against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.655 of 2020, on the file of SEB Police Station, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction 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 4 VS,J Crlp_5430_2021 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. 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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_5430_2021 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) 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 6 VS,J Crlp_5430_2021 (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. From the material available on record, it can be seen that a crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 34(e) of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 on the sole ground that he was found to be in possession of jaggery content alone. For better understanding, Section 34(e) of A.P. Excise Act is extracted hereunder: “34. Penalties for illegal import, etc., Whoever, in contravention of this Act or of any rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder or of any licence or permit granted or issued under this Act, (e) uses, keeps, or has in his possession any materials, stills, utensils, implements or apparatus whatsoever for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant other than toddy; or” 13. It is clear from the aforesaid Section that the predominant requirement to attract the said offence is that a person must be found to be in possession of the said jaggery content for the purpose of manufacturing an intoxicant. Mere possession of jaggery content is not made an offence under the aforesaid Section. In the instant case, the petitioner herein is found to be in possession of the said jaggery content but the same is not for the purpose 7 VS,J Crlp_5430_2021 of manufacturing an intoxicant as no other material was found at the scene of offence. It must be shown that the petitioner is in possession of the jaggery content for the purpose of manufacturing an intoxicant. Except stating that jaggery content was found, nowhere it was mentioned that the petitioner is in possession of the same for the purpose of manufacturing any intoxicant. If the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner herein in the absence of specific evidence that the petitioner has prepared the jaggery content for the purpose of manufacturing an intoxicant, it would amount to abuse of process of law. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab(1st Supra) if 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, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 14. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the case registered in FIR.No.655 of 2020 on the file of Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Chintalapudi, West Godavari District is hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 17.02.2025 Gss