IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1255 OF 2022 Between; 1. Shaik Mastan Vali, S/o Hussain, Aged about 39 Years, Occ. Driver of Lorry, Caste. Muslim, R/o Mulakaluru Village, Narasaraopet Mandal, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED N0.1 AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh, At Amaravati. 2. Mr. K.Hari Babu, Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT 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 to call for records in C.C.No.280 of 2021, on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District i:: Crime No.32 of 2020 on the file of the S.H.O., Chilakaluripet Rural P.S., Guntur District in for the alleged offences under Section 379 of iPC and Section 21(4)of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957 and quash the same in so far as the petitioner herein (Accused No.1 ) is concerned, in the interest of justice I.A. NO: 2 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 C.C.No.280 of 2021, on the file of the Court of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District (Accused No.1) is concerned, in the interest of justice in so far as petitioner herein 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 (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following order: APHC010077972022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1255/2022 Between: SHAIK MASTAN VALI, S/0 HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER OF LORRY, CASTE, MUSLIM, R/0 MULAKALURU VILLAGE, NARASARAOPET MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AT AMARAVATI. 2.MR K HARI BABU, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHILAKALURIPET RURAL P.S., GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.SOMISETTY GANESH BABU 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.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.280 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet for the offence under Section 379 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C' 2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^ and Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957^. Heard Ms.K.D.S.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel representing Sri S.Ganesh Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.K.Priyanka 2. Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that. Petitioner/Accused No.1 is the driver of the subject lorry Accused No.2 is doing business by following the rules and regulations. Learned counsel would further submit that though the Petitioner had shown the relevant papers for transportation of the material, the Police without verifying the same and without following the due procedure as contemplated under MMDAR Act, registered the present case against the Petitioner. It is submitted that the present case has been foisted against the Petitioner without there being any prima facie material against the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner neither committed any theft nor transported the granite slabs illegally. Learned counsel would finally submit that continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. It is further submitted that, prima facie case is made out against 4. 2 for short I.P.C.’ ^ for short ‘MMDAR Act’ 3 the Petitioner. This Court cannot conduct mini trial, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and prays for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determinations 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 the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.280 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakalufipet? 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 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. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decisidirrendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State 7. 4 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 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 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. (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 proceedih^d0inst the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or thd Wncerned Act (under which a 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific in the Code or the concerned Act, providing fa provision 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 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.” I an (emphasis supplied) of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 24.02.2020 while 8. The case Respondent No.2 along with his staff was conducting vehicle checking at Mangalapalem Donka, Chilakaluripet Mandal, at about 7.30 p.m., they found from Martur Village towards Chilakaluripet and on seeing the one lorry coming Police, Petitioner/Accused No.1 who is the driver of the said lorry stopped the On apprehension lorry on the road margin and tried to run away. Petitioner/Accused No.1 voluntarily confessed that he has been working as a No.AP 07 TF 9459 belongs to one Karanam driver of lorry bearing Prasannanjaneyulu of Narasaraopet Town and in that connection. Accused got acquainted with Accused No.2, who is the owner of Teja Sri Granite No.1 Factory, Degaramudi Village, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District and Accused offered Accused No.1 to transport granite stones without bills for getting Accused No.1 used to No.2 profits, for which Accused No.1 agreed. In that view load granite blocks in his lorry at A.2’s granite factory without bills and without 6 informing to his owner and used to sell away at Narasaraopet and in the neighbouring areas. While so, on the relevant date, after unloading the paddy load, Petitioner/Accused No.1, loaded the granite blocks worth Rs.2.00 lakhs belongs to Accused No.2 in his lorry and while transporting the same without any bills, he was caught by the Police. As such, the present case in Crime No.32 of 2020 of Chilakapuripet Rural Police Station has been registered against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet for the alleged offences against Accused Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner/Accused No.1 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the case against him. 9. At this stage it is apposite to extract Section 21(4) of MMDAR Act which reads as follows: ‘‘21. Penalties.— (4) Whenever any person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any fnineral from any land, and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, such mineral tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf" 10. In the instant case, as the Petitioner was found while transporting the granite blocks in the lorry bearing No.AP 07 TF 9459, the Police seized the said lorry along with the material. Thereafter, the owner of the said lorry namely Karanam Aswini approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5922 of 2020, wherein, this Court vide orders dated 05.03.2020 directed the SHO to produce the said lorry before the jurisdictional Magistrate within days from the date of receipt of that order and said Karanam Aswini was given liberty to file an 7 application before the Magistrate seeking release of the vehicle. Accordingly, the said lorry was returned to the owner by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet vide Official Memorandum in Crl.M.P.No.1032 of 2020 dated 13.03.2020. Admittedly, the Petitioner herdin is the driver of the said lorry. It is the contention of the Petitioner that, though the Petitioner produced the relevant 11. documents for the transportation of the granite, the Police, without verifying the same, have falsely implicated him in the present case. There is no material placed on record, to show that the Petitioner has committed the offence under Section 21 (4) of MMDAR Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that the proceedings against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 21 (4) of MMDAR Act are liable to be quashed. However, there are prims facie allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the offence under Section 379 IPC and the genuineness of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that, it is 12. a fit case to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused for the offence under Section 21 (4) of MMDAR Act, however, it is desirable to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC. In result, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed quashing the 13. proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.280 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet for the 8 offence under Section 21 (4) of MMDAR Act. The proceedings against Petitioner for the offence under Section 379 IPC shall continue, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall As a sequel thereto stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHAMMED RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Chilakaluripet, Guntur District Chilakaluripet Rural P.S., Guntur District Somisetty Ganesh Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 1. The Additional Junior Civil Judge 2. The Station House Officer 3. One CC to Sri. 4. Two CCS to Pubiic Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies SM GSC HIGH COURT DATED: 18/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1255 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION IN PART