Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kallam Gangadhar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 18 June, 2024
1
*HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
+WRIT PETITION No.40007 of 2016
Between:
# Kallam Gangadhar Reddy, S/o. Govind Reddy
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
.... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON .18.06.2024
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
- Yes -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to
Law Reporters/Journals - Yes -
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see the fair
copy of the Judgment? - Yes -
___________________________________
DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
2
* THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
+WRIT PETITION No.40007 of 2016
% 18.06.2024
Between:
# Kallam Gangadhar Reddy, S/o. Govind Reddy
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Home
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. Crl.A.No.1452 of 2023, dated 10.05.2023
3
APHC010351492016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 40007/2016
Between:
Kallam Gangadhar Reddy, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P S P SURESH KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents No.3
and 4 in registering FIR No.158 of 2016 and showing the petitioner as
Accused No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of
Vigneshwara Traders and running rice mill and he is having requisite licenses
to run this rice mill. One company by name Raja & Co. from Palagath, Kerala
approached the petitioner through some commission agent and requested to
supply 210 quintals of rice. Accordingly they raised a way bill from the
commercial tax department and on 15.11.2016 at 5.10 p.m. Further they also
obtained the requisite permit from the Agricultural Market Committee,
Sattenapalli on the same day. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied 280 bags
of rice each containing 75 kgs totaling to 210 quintals worth of Rs.4,39,110/-
inclusive of VAT. Thereafter, the lorry bearing No.TN 34 V 4312 moved from
rice mill at 5.30 p.m. on 15.11.2016 to Palagath, Kerala and when the lorry
travelled 9 KMs from rice mill to Palagath, Kerala, the Sub Inspector of Police,
Sattenapalli Rural police station has stopped the vehicle and seized the same
with load and registered a case in Crime No.158 of 2016 under Section 420
IPC and Section 7(1) of E.C.Act, 1955. Question the said action, the present
writ petition came to be filed.
3. This Court vide order dated 2.12.2016 has granted interim direction
to the police concerned not to arrest the petitioner.
4. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for
the respondents.
5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents No.3 and 4 have falsely implicated the petitioner and arrested
him illegally as there is no illegal transportation of rice. The petitioner has all
sorts of bills and documents, Online Way bill, permit, tax, Invoice which shows
that the 210 quintals of rice is a pure non-Government rice. Therefore it
cannot be said that the same is PDS rice. But however with a view to harass
the petitioner in all the ways the respondent No.4 registered the FIR and high
handedly seized the rice. He further submits that earlier also the respondent
No.4 registered false cases against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner
transporting PDS rice. In all the cases Joint Collector and Curt have
exonerated the petitioner stating the subject rice are not PDS rice. To this
effect, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2016 (WPMP
No.53149 of 2016) seeking to receive the order copies passed by the Joint
Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Guntur passed in EC
No.444/2014-S7 dated 24.07.2015 and order in EC No.970/2014-S7 dated
24.07.2015 and orders passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Sattenapalli in CC No.130 of 2014 dated 15.09.2015 and orders passed by
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla in CC No.50 of 2014 dated
05.01.2016 as material papers.
6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader denying all the
allegations made in the petition. On instructions received from the Sub
Inspector of Police, Sattenapalli Rural P.S., he would submit that, the above
case was registered against the petitioner (A.3) in accordance with law, since
he has cheated the Government and the PDS Rice consumers by transporting
the PDS rice illegally and contrary to the provisions of EC Act through his
agents i.e., the drivers of the lorry have clearly stated the involvement of the
petitioner in the above said offence. Therefore, there is no irregularity or
illegality in registering the Crime No.158 of 2016 against the petitioner herein
as Accused No.3. Further, during the course of investigation the samples of
PDS Rice seized rice are sent for chemical analysis and report and the said
report is awaited. Therefore the contention of the petitioner that he has been
illegally implicated in the crime is not true and tenable. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader would further contend that., during the course of
investigation the Investigating Officer has examined eight (8) witnesses and
recorded their statements and arrested the accused A1, A2 on 15.11.2016,
served 41-A notice on 22.12.2016 to the accused A4. Later, the petitioner A3
approached the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh by way of filing this present writ
petition and this Court has directed the police concerned not to arrest the
petitioner/A3. Thereafter, as per the investigation, there is prima facie against
the accused under Section 420 IPC and Section 7 of E.C. Act. After
completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed Charge
sheet before the I Additional Civil Judge-cum-Junior Division, Sattenapalli and
the same was numbered as CC No.19 of 2018 and pending trial.
7. On a perusal of the material available on record, as seen from the
orders in EC No.444/2014-S7, dated 24.07.2015, wherein it was held that,
The 2nd respondent has also stated that the charge leveled against the
petitioner is based upon confessional statement of driver and cleaner who are
not owner of the property and they did not stated anything like the
confessional statement as recorded by the Vigilance Officials, but such
confessional statement which is not leading to recovery is not valid under law.
He also stated that the allegation of the complainant as well as the Vigilance &
Enforcement Officials that the rice found in the lorry is pertaining to PDS is not
correct and there is no proof to establish the allegation and there is no specific
analysis to prove that any rice found in the transit is pertaining to PDS, so that
the allegation is made only upon false presumption without any corroborating
material. Hence, the allegation under 1 charge is not maintainable. He also
stated that being an agriculturist and produced the seized stock of resultant
rice of paddy yielded, will get exemption from the alleged control orders as
producer defined under APSCD (LSR) Order, 2007 and does not come under
the purview of APSPDS (Control) Order, 2008.
8. On verifying the order dated 15.09.2015 passed in CC No.130 of
2014, which was filed along with the material papers, wherein the II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, held that the A1 to A7 are found not guilty for
the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 7(1) of Essential Commodities
Act and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of
accused, and of their sureties, if any shall stand cancelled and they are set at
liberty.
9. In a case of Sri Gulam Mustafa versus The State of Karnataka
and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
Crl.A.No.1452 of 2023, dated 10.05.2023
"It was submitted that as the specific allegations pertain to cheating, criminal
conspiracy and trespass, being cognizable offences under the IPC, and the same
relating to the property belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
community would attract provisions of the SC/ST Act. It was reiterated that the
property in question belongs to the respondent no. 2 and her family members, and
any construction raised on the subject-land is by creating forged documents.
29. In Uma Shankar Gopalika v State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336, at Para
7 thereof, it was held that when 20 the complaint fails to disclose any criminal
offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code: "In
our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less
any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a
case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil
court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts
allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process
of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to
quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 Code which it has
erroneously refused." (emphasis supplied)
In State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court held:
"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 16
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 proceeding against the accused. (6)
Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
17 the 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, providing 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 an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal
grudge.
31. In Vinod Natesan v State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401, this Court took
the position outlined hereunder: "11. ... Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove,
we are more than satisfied that there was no criminality on part of the accused and a
civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the
criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process of law.
Therefore, the High Court has rightly exercised the powers under Section 482 CrPC
and has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. In view of the aforesaid and for the
reasons stated above, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is
accordingly dismissed." (emphasis supplied)
10. On perusing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Gulam
Mustafa's case (referred to above), it is pertinent to mention here that, the
recognition by Section 482 of the power inhering in the High Court to prevent
the abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice is a valuable safeguard
for protecting liberty.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, the
registration in favour of the petitioners was one year prior to the registration of
the present impugned FIR which shows that the instance referred to is
altogether a different transaction or an afterthought made to give a colour of
criminality. Either way the complaint fails and therefore is liable to be
quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR
No.158 of 2016 on the file of Sattenapalli (R) Police Station, Guntur District, is
hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.. As a sequel,
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________
DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 18.06.2024
Note : L.R.copy to be marked.
(b/o) Gvl
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 40007 of 2016
Date: 18 .06.2023
Gvl
