Telangana High Court
Cheerala Sambashiva Reddy And 5 ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 26 March, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2567 OF 2021
With I.A. No.1 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking
to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1096 of 2017 on the file of
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani
Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 and for a consequential direction
as to return the seized property. The petitioners are accused in
the above said Crime. The offences alleged against them are
under Sections 270 and 273 of IPC. Whereas, the petitioners
also filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 for return of material, which were
seized in the above said crime.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material
available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the
subject matter is squarely covered by a common order in
Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana1 rendered by
the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, and placed copy of
the said judgment for perusal.
1
Crl.P.No.3731 of 2018 & batch, decided on 27.08.2018
2
3. In Chidurala Shyamsubder's case (supra), a learned
Single Judge of the High Court, following the guidelines laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal2, held that the Police are incompetent to take
cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 45 and
59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (FSS) Act, 2006,
investigating into the offences along with other offences under
the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and filing charge
sheet is grave illegality, as the Food Officer alone is competent to
investigate and to file charge sheet following the Rules laid down
under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS Act, whereas, in the present
case, the Police have registered the crime for the offences under
Sections 270 and 273 of IPC. Therefore, the said proceedings in
C.C.No.1096 of 2017 against the petitioners herein are contrary
to the principle held by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court in Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra) and, accordingly, the
same are liable to be quashed.
4. In view of the above submission, the present Criminal
Petition is allowed in terms of the judgment in Chidurala
Shyamsubder (supra), and the proceedings in C.C.No.1096 of
2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Manthani, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, are hereby
quashed against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the seized property is in the custody of Additional Judicial
2
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
3
Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, Jayashankar Bhupalpally
District and sought direction to the learned Magistrate, to return
the seized property to the petitioner.
7. I.A. No.1 of 2021 is filed by the petitioners for return of
material, which were seized in the above said crime. Since the
proceedings in the aforesaid case are quashed against the
petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.No.1096 of 2017, the
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani,
Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, is directed to return the
seized property on proper identification and verification of
ownership of seized property under due acknowledgment.
Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2021 is closed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the
criminal petition, shall stand closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
26.03.2021
dv
