1
crlp_4072_2015
AVR, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4072 of 2015
ORDER:
1. The petitioner-accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2014 pending on the file of II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACP Cases, at Hyderabad, which is now transferred to the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE cases at Karimnagar, and numbered as C.C.No.89 of 2015 on the file of that Court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a case in Crime No.10/ACB- KNR/2013 was registered against the petitioner on 01.03.2013 under Section 7and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'), alleging that he has demanded bribe from the 2nd respondent-complainant for doing official favour; that the investigating agency has filed the charge sheet and the case is pending for trial. The gist of the charge sheet is that the petitioner who is arrayed as A.O.1 along with A.O.2 has demanded and accepted total amount of Rs.15,000/- i.e., Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to A.O.1 and A.O.2, respectively, as illegal gratification on 01.03.2013 for doing official favour. But the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the charge sheet are totally false and not supported by any material on record. The proceedings are set in motion on the basis of motivated complainant scribed by one Jagga Reddy against him, as the petitioner has registered a theft of energy case and the said individual has colluded with the complainant.
3. As per the report lodged by the complainant, he along with 12 others, having agricultural basements have applied to Superintending Engineer for sanction of two 25 KV transformers, but the complainant has neither mentioned the details of agricultural lands nor that of bore-well. 2
crlp_4072_2015 AVR, J As on the date of trap, no agreement was entered into between the Divisional Engineer (Operations) and the Contractor for execution of work. The said agreement was only entered on 18.03.2013. The Sanction Order is dated 29.01.2013, but not issued in December, 2012. The investigating agency did not verify or cross-check the facts before registering the case. The competent authority while according sanction under Section 19 of the Act has not applied its mind to the facts of the case. The complainant Jagga Reddy and the DSP, ACB bore grudge and they have a grievance against the petitioner/AO1. In fact the DSP, ACB has made several attempts to get the daughter of his wife's brother married to the petitioner, as the petitioner and his family members have not acceded to the alliance proposals, he bore grudge against the petitioner and implicated in false case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to submit that the de facto complainant has no land, he did not enter into any agreement with the Divisional Engineer (Operations) for execution of work, and stated that subsequent to filing of this case, he has submitted an application to the Tahsildar, Husnabad, to ascertain the particulars of agricultural land, if any, on the name of the de facto complainant, Badavath Gangya Naik, the Tahsildar, vide his letter dated 18.05.2013 informed under Right to Information Act, that there is no land in favour of Badavath Gangya Naik, S/o Venkatram, Balunaik Thanda, R/o Nandaram village.
5. Accordingly, based on the information obtained under the RTI Act on 18.05.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner/AO1 strenuously contended that when there is no land on the name of defacto complainant, the question of granting any Service Connection for bore- well does not arise, he has been falsely implicated in this case at the 3 crlp_4072_2015 AVR, J instance of DSP, ACB whose proposal for marriage was not acceded to by the petitioner, and accordingly requested to quash the proceedings.
6. Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Law is well settled that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
7. The allegations in the FIR or the charge sheet shall alone be looked into to consider whether the ingredients of the offence alleged is made out or not. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court while considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
In the case on hand, the petitioner has made certain wild allegations against the DSP, ACB, Karimnagar, and also one Ganga Reddy stating that as the petitioner and his family failed to accept the marriage proposal offered by DSP, ACB, who bore grudge and falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. Probably this may be one of the defences of the accused officer during the trial, and it cannot be considered at this stage in the Quash Proceedings without any factual basis.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/AO1 has relied upon the information obtained from the Tahsildar, Husnabad, to the effect that there is no such agricultural land in the name of Badvath Gangya Naik, S/o Venkatram. But it is not a proper stage to consider such material that was obtained by the petitioner/AO1 under RTI At. The investigation and the material available on record would establish that prima facie case is made out. The allegations are required to be proved before the Court. 4
crlp_4072_2015 AVR, J It is for the petitioner/AO1 to establish that he is innocent or that there is no such land in the name of defacto complainant etc. The information collected by the petitioner in defence cannot be looked into at this stage in the Quash Proceedings. The High Court cannot at this stage embark upon appreciating the evidence while considering application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
9. Whereas the Mediators report shows that on questioning by the ACB officials whether he has accepted any bribe amount from anybody before their arrival, the petitioner stated that he accepted an amount of Rs.15,000/- from Badavath Gangya Naik, Hamlet of Nandaram village, Husnabad Mandal for execution of administrative approval and technical sanction order of the Superintendent Engineer (Operations), A.P, Karimnagar, for strengthening of power supply to the agricultural lands of the complainant with a load of 32 HP by erecting two 25 KV electricity transformers.
10. When the DSP, ACB, has asked AO1 has picked up said amount from the concerned side pocket of his black colour bag and handed over the said tainted amount to the mediators mentioned therein and the said amount was counted, the details mentioned in the internal page No.3 of mediators report and found to be tallied.
11. The Hon' ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions has laid down principles for quashing the FIR and the circumstances under which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR, recently in the following decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings.
5
crlp_4072_2015
AVR, J
(i) Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab and others1
(ii) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yogendra Singh Jadon and
another2
(iii) Amish Devgan v. Union of India and others3
12. On a careful analysis of the principles laid in the above decisions, it is clear that it is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged and the interference by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is only to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
The High Court cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence while considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings.
13. In the decision in Amish Devgan (3 supra) (3-judges Bench judgment) at paragraph 121, the Hon' ble Supreme Court held as under:
"We are conscious and aware of the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal, P.P. Sharma and the earlier decision in R.P. Kapur which held that the High Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, can quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent abuse of process or otherwise to secure ends of justice. These could be cases where, manifestly, there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the prosecution or the proceedings, such as due to requirement of prior sanction; or where the allegations made in the FIR 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; or where the allegations in the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence; or 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. Another qualifying category in 1 (2020) 3 SCC 317 2 (2020) 12 SCC 588 3 (2021) 1 SCC 1 6 crlp_4072_2015 AVR, J cases where charge-sheet is filed would be those where allegations against the accused do constitute the offence alleged, but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Application of these principles depends on factual matrix of each case. Strict and restricted as the requirements are, they are at this stage not satisfied in the present case."
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court, as prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the request of the petitioner/AO1 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.23 of 2014 pending on the file of II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACP Cases, at Hyderabad, which is now transferred to the Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE cases at Karimnagar, and numbered as C.C.No.89 of 2015 on the file of that Court.
In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Interlocutory Applications, if any pending in this criminal petition, shall stand closed.
________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J 08th November, 2021 ksm 7 crlp_4072_2015 AVR, J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4072 of 2015 08th November, 2021 KSM