4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAW WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY cf TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9871 OF 2022 Between: 1. B.Sreenivasulu, O/o (Electrical A.E), Gajulapalli Village Mahanandi Mandal, Karnool District. 2. Nagaraju,, Electrical Linemen, Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi Mandia, Karnool District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 & 3 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep.,by its Public Prosecutor, High Courts Amaravathi. 2. Bhupani Srinivasulu,, S/o Venkata Subbaiaha, Aged about 20 years, Gajulapalli Village, Mahanandi Mandal, Nandyala town, Karnool 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 call for the records in CC No. 2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First class Magistrate Nandyala. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 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 stay all further proceedings in CC 2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandyala. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V R REDDY KOWURI, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010666482022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9871/2022 Between: 1.B.SREENIVASULU, 0/0. (ELECTRICAL A.E), GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE MAHANANDI MANDAL, KARNOOL DISTRICT. ELECTRICAL LINEMEN, GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE. 2.NAGARAJU, MAHANANDI MANDLA, KARNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.,BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI. 2. BHUPANI SRINIVASULU, S/0 VENKATA SUBBAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE, MAHANANDI MANDAL, NANDYALA TOWN, KARNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petltioner/accused(S): 1.VR REDDY KOWURI 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^ is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the Petitioners and 2. Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. The notice which was sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as ‘refused’. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners 3. have no role in the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.1 was committing theft of electricity by drawing a wire from a transformer and while the deceased was loading the sand during midnight, he came into contact with the livewire which was drawn by Accused No.1 and died due to electrocution. It is submitted that, the investigating officer, after due investigation, having found no prima facie case against the Petitioners, shown them in the charge sheet as Not Charged Accused. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners. 4. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation. 2 for short IPC’ Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in C.C.No.2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal? Determination by the Court 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 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 present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of 6. 7. 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 "^3 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 bv 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, thouah it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently ff'^/^elised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formuiae 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 ,f they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not pnrna facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the SCCUSSu. (2) Where the ailegations 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 ODde ^ Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the of any offence and make out a case against the accused. f® do not constitute a cognizable offence but no investigation is permitted by a '^^de in the FiR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever ' the Llused sufficient ground for proceeding against (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted In any of the provisions of the Zin 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, proiZdlg effic!Zus redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/nr where (te proceeding Is maliciously Instituted with an uZZ ZotZ Z Za^ !n7pTZn’SgZjg.: commission 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect criminal proceeding should be exercised and that too in the rarest of that the power of quashing a very sparingly and with circumspection cases; that the court will not be Justified //: rare in 3 AIR 1992 SC 604 \ 5 embarking upon an enquiry as to the reiiabiiity or genuineness or otherwise of the aiiegations made in the FiR or the compiaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction whim or caprice." the court to act according to its on (emphasis suppiied) In the case on hand, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint alleging that, he along with the deceased namely Marella Nagarjuna 24.05.2020 at about 6.00 p.m., while returning from their work of loading the sand in the Tractor of one Boya Babu, they reached the fields of one Pakkir 8. on Saheb, wherein, without taking any precautions, the Electricity Department gave connection to the motor situated in the fields of Accused No.1 from the transformer situated in the fields of said Pakkir Saheb, without any poles, due to which one electrical wire was fallen on the ground. That being so, while the deceased was returning through the said fields on the given date and time, came into contact with the electrical wire and died due to electrocution. As seen from the contents of the complaint it is clear that. Accused No.1, whose lands are situated in Boyalakuntia Village, has drawn electrical wire from a transformer illegally and in that view, the deceased came in 9. contact with a live wire and died due to electrocution. There is not even single ^ specific allegation to prima facie attract the offence under Section 304-A I PC against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Lineman of APSPDCL. It is Accused No.1, who had drawn the electrical wire unauthorizedly. show that Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 had given such an unauthorized connection to the motor pump of Accused No.1 and thereby caused death of I 1 Further, there is no evidence to 6 the deceased due to electrocution. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer after a thorough investigation arrived at a conclusion that there is no prima facie case established against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 to continue further prosecution- and the same- was recorded in the charge sheet by showing the Petitioners as “Not Charged Accused”. In view of the above discussion and the judgment referred to supra, even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value 10. and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. 11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal, for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed SD/-A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Nandyala,Karnool District. 2. One CC to SRI. V R REDDY KOWURI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor High Court of AP, Amaravati [OUT] 4. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.9871 of 2022 1 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION