D. Thirupathi Reddy vs Sri A.Madhava Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 1951 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2019 OF 2022

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner - accused No.34 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,

and perused the record.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No.34 in Crime No.155 of

2022 pending on the file of Saroornagar Police Station, Rachakonda

Commissionerate. Initially the crime was registered for the offences

under Sections - 143, 147, 148, 341, 332 and 307 read with 149 of IPC

and Section - 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. During

the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has added

Sections - 152 and 326 read with 120B of IPC by deleting Section -

307 of IPC and Section - 7 of CLA Act, 1952. The remand report of

accused Nos.9 to 14 discloses the said fact. The allegations against

the petitioner herein is that they formed into unlawful assembly with

deadly weapons, wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused

grievous hurt by dangerous weapons to deter public servant from his

duty on 23.02.2022.

KL,J Crl.P. No.2019 of 2022

3. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would

submit that during the course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer has recorded the statements of 23 witnesses and also the

confessional statement of accused No.11. In the said confessional

statement, accused No.11 has categorically stated about the role

played by the petitioner herein in the commission of the offences. The

matter is at crime stage and the Investigating Officer has to consider

several factual aspects including the statements of the witnesses

recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. and the confessional

statement of other accused. On the basis of the said statements, the

Investigating Officer has to complete investigation and file final report

under Section - 173 of the Cr.P.C. / charge sheet.

4. As stated above, the matter is at crime stage. The aforesaid

contentions taken by the petitioner herein have to be ascertained by

the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Prima

facie, the statements of the witnesses and the remand report constitute

the offences alleged against the petitioner herein and the role played

by him is also specifically mentioned. Therefore, scuttling the

investigation at the threshold is not warranted. The Hon'ble Supreme

KL,J Crl.P. No.2019 of 2022

Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of

Maharashtra1, laid certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising

power by High Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article -

226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under:

"....

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities.

               The       inherent    power       of     the   court    is,

    . AIR 2021 SC 1918

                                                                           KL,J
                                                         Crl.P. No.2019 of 2022

however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned

KL,J Crl.P. No.2019 of 2022

Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

5. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it, has categorically held that the High Courts

in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

6. In view of the above discussion and the pronouncements of

the Apex court, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL,J Crl.P. No.2019 of 2022

against the petitioner herein in the subject crime and, therefore, the

present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

criminal petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 19th April, 2022 Mgr