Telangana High Court

B. Srinivas, Nizamabad vs Inspector Of Police, Acb, Knr ... on 8 November, 2021

Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy

                                       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.

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

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.

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.

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

(2020) 3 SCC 317

(2020) 12 SCC 588

(2021) 1 SCC 1

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,