Telangana High Court
S.Linga Murthy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11082 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in FIR.No.01/ACB- KNR/2020 on the file of the ACB Police Station, Karimnagar, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) (for short 'Act, 2018').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that while he was driving his vehicle bearing No.AP287328 traveling from Karimnagar to Sircilla, he found a person selling sand and as he was in need of said sand, he purchased the same and got it loaded in his vehicle. However, amidst his way when he reached near Lachupet Village, a CI who is petitioner/accused No.2 came from opposite direction 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11082 of 2022 and stopped his vehicle and in escort of a gunman, the respondent No.2 was asked to get into the Police vehicle through which, they reached Gambhiraopet Police Station, where an SI was deputed. Later, after several attempts to retrieve his seized vehicle back, the respondent NO.2 alleged that the SI went to the room of CI and came back with an offer to present a bribe of Rs.25,000/- and take back his vehicle. However, when the respondent NO.2 expressed is inability to pay the said amount and offered to give Rs.10,000/- he was advised to meet SI who refused to reduce the amount and abused the respondent No.2.
3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused No.2for the offences punishable under Section 7(a) of the Act, 2018. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.11082 of 2022
4. Heard Sri Venu Madhav, learned counsel representing Smt. Divya Adepu, learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2, and Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned Standing Counsel for ACB, appearing for respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the averments of the complaint do not contain any specific allegation against the petitioner where he is demanding illegal gratification from respondent No.2. He further submitted that Section 7(a) of the Act, 2018 mandates that there must be demand and acceptance of illegal gratification but the same is nowhere seen through the averments of the chargesheet. He contended that the on 3.12.2020 i.e., the day of trap proceedings, the audio verbatim discloses that the petitioner was not present at all and the entire conversation was between the complainant and the other accused. As such, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner. 4
SKS,J Crl.P.No.11082 of 2022
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for ACB, appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner/accused No.2 with regard to the bribe taken for the purpose of non-seizure of the vehicle of respondent No.2. Heasserted that the allegationleveled against the petitioner/accused No.2 whetherhe is part of the bribe demanded requires full-fledged trial.Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the primary contention of petitioner/accused is that he is not involved in the activity of taking bribe from the respondent No.2, whereas, the contention of respondent NO.2 is that though the petitioner/accused No.2 was not directly involved in the monetary transactions but he was actively involved in the conversation that took place between the SI and the respondent No.2.
8. That apart, perusal of the record filed by the learned Standing Counsel for ACB, such as,copies of the 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11082 of 2022 Mediator Reports I and II and also the verbatim statements dated 28.12.2019 and 03.1.2020 would disclose that the petitioner/accused No.2could be a part of the said bribery and the said issue can be decided only afterfull-fledged trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is no way concerned with the offence.
9. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.
10. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, paragraph No.14 reads as under:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and 1 (2012) 10 SCC 155 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11082 of 2022 with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra) this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:06.06.2024 PT