Telangana High Court
Mudhavath Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3451 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in C.C.No.77 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') and Section 34 (a) of the Telangana State Excise Act, 1968 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2023, respondent No.2, SI of Police, Wanaparthy Rural Police Station, received credible information about selling of illegal liquor in Chityala Village of Wanaparthy Mandal. On receipt of the said information, the staff of respondent No.2 rushed to the said place and raided on the Sevalal Naik Dhaba. Accused No.1 is the owner of the hotel and accused No.2 is the husband of accused No.1 and they were selling the illicit liquor in their hotel to customers at excess rates to gain more 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3451 of 2024 money without having any valid permits from the concerned authorities. Respondent No.2 searched the hotel and found different brands of liquor in the hotel. During the panchanama, accused No.2 came and abused the Police personals in filthy language and obstructed their legitimate duties, threatened them with dire consequences and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, in the presence of mediators, the Police conducted confessional panchanama and also seized the illicit liquor bottles. In the meantime, accused Nos.2 to 5 came there and obstructed the duties of the Police. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.114 of 2023 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.77 of 2024 before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.
3. Heard Sri Madhirala Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint shows that respondent No.2 created a false narration and implicated the petitioners in the 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3451 of 2024 case. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 is doing agricultural work in the village, petitioner No.2 is a business man and due to the present case, their reputation was damaged in the society. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint itself shows that the petitioners were involved in selling of illicit liquor and they obstructed the Police during the seizure of Panchanama. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature, which requires trial, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3451 of 2024 Surendra Kori 1 , wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"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 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."
8. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is to be noted that when the Police personals were conducting panchnama, the petitioners came there, abused them and also obstructed them in conducting panchnama and doing their legitimate duties. A perusal of the charge sheet also shows that the petitioners obstructed the Police in discharging their duties. Therefore, there are specific allegations leveled against the petitioners. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are no allegations against the petitioners and the same requires trial. 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3451 of 2024
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 20.06.2024 SAI