IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6591 OF 2019 Between: Poundri Srinu @ Kota Srinivasa Rao, S/o Pothu Raju, aged 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o D.No 7-174, Chowdary Colony, Prakasam District, AP 523301 ...Petitioner / Proposed Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, S.H.O Santhamagulur P.S., Prakasam District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 2. P Siva Nagaraju, Sub inspector of Police Santhamagalur P.S. Prakasam District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS 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 call for records in Crime No 129 of 2019 on the file of the SHO Santhamagulur P.S., Prakasam District, registered for the alleged offences under sections 420 r/w 34 of IPC , sections 21(4) of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner herein i justice. IS concerned in the interest of I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, S.H.O Santhamagulur District, Represented by its Pubiic Prosecutor, Pradesh at Amaravathi. P.S., Prakasam High Court of Andhra ...Petitioner /1** Respondent And 1. Poundri Srinu @ Kota Srinivasa Rao, S/o Pothu Raju, aged 41 years, Occ; Business, R/o D.No 7-174, Chowdary COIony, Prakasam District AP 523301 ...Respondent / Petitioner 2. P Siva Nagaraju, Sub inspector of Police Santhamagalur Prakasam District. P.S. ...Respondent / Respondent Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds the High Court of Criminal Petition, may be pieased to vacate the interim order dated 18.11.2019 passed in I.A.No. 2 of 2019 in Cri.P. No. 6591 of 2019, which on 11.12.2019, 08.01.2020 and finally was subsequently extended 06.10.2020. on I.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in Crime No. 129 of 2019 on the file of the Santhamagulur P.S., Prakasam District, in so far as the petitioner/Accused is concerned, in the interest of justice. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Somisetty Ganesh Babu, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following order: APHC010394592019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6591/2019 0^0 0fc^7J: [3333] Between: Poundri Srinu @ Kota Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) mi ORDER: The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the petitioner/proposed accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Crime No. 129 of 2019 of Santhamagulur Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The facts of the case, in brief are as follows:- 2. On 06.10.2019 at about 16:40 hours, the complainant, on receipt of credible information about illegal transportation of granite slabs to other states, has proceeded along with his staff for vehicle checking. While so, at about 17:00 hours a lorry bearing No.AP07TN0477 was coming from Santhanaguluru side. They stopped the said lorry and found that granite slabs without there being any bills, were being transported. Accordingly, they seized the lorry along with granite load and arrested the driver. Basing on the police proceedings, a case in crime No. 129 of 2019 for the offence U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC and Section 21(4) of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 was registered. During the course of investigation, one Nadendia Subhash Chandra Bose, S/o. Subba Rao, was apprehended and he confessed that he has been working as pilot and giving information on vehicle checking in and around for lorries from the granite Factories along with of his accomplice belonging to Martur and other areas, wherein he confessed some 3 the names of the petitioners herein and basing on the said confession, petitioners herein were arrayed as accused in the above crime. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent to the alleged offences and he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. He contends that the respondent Police have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as the competent authority prescribed under the Act has to initiate appropriate action, if there is any violation of the provisions of the Act. He further contends that Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 has no application and the provisions of Section 410 of IPC also do not attract as there are no specific averments against the petitioner, except the solitary statement of the accused. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 5. respondents would contend that after following due procedure, the Police registered the present case and the respondent Police basing, on the confessional statement made by the other accused, registered the present crime registered against the petitioner herein, the truth or otherwise of the allegations will be determined during the course of trial and there are no justifiable grounds to quash the proceedings and prays for dismissal of the criminal petition. 4 Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any Justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner/proposed accused in panchanama in Crime No. 129 of 2019 of Santhamagulur Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957? A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that 7. 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 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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be 8. present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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 application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103 the circumstances 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 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 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 prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the ifrst 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. (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 mglkttously instituted with an 6 the accused and with a ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. on 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.” relevant to extract Section 21(1) and 22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 21. Penalties:-Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees per hectare of the area. 22. Cognizance of offences:- cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made there under except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. It is 9. No court shall take A perusal of the provisions of the sections extracted, envisages that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder, except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. In answer to the said aspect, it is relevant to refer Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules, defines authorized officer, which means an officer in a rank below Group B, authorized by the State Government or the Commissioner or the 10. 7 '.'V Director of Mines and Geology or Deputy Commissioner of the District to act \ for this specific purpose under this rule. According to the said Rule, it makes clear that the Police have no 11. authority to entertain a complaint under the Act unless a complaint in writing is made by the persons authorized under Rule 2(1)(a-1-a) of the Rules. The Police even have not stated that they are authorized persons under the Rule nor they accompanied any authorization entitling them to file a complaint. In the absence of compliance of mandatory provisions that have to be followed and as there is no material on record, except confessional statement of A1, to show that the petitioners herein are indulged in transporting illegal granite continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in 12. Crime No.129 of 2019 of Santhamagulur Police Station, Prakasam District, initiated against the petitioner/proposed accused is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR assistant registrar W Ur ' SECTION OFFICER //true copy// To, Santhamagulur P S., PraKasam s,i P s» » ».«». •' ■ Prakasam District. mPUCl 1. The 2. The Station House Officer 5. Two CCS to 6. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:03/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6591 of 2019 ALLOWING THE CRLP