Smt. Naseeha vs State Of Telangana And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3165 Tel

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 720 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Y. Swaroop Sai, learned Counsel

representing Mr. CMR Velu, learned Counsel for

petitioner, Sri T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Special

Public Prosecutor for ACB cases, and Sri SK. Masthan

Zulfekhar, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent.

2. This petition is filed under section 482 of

Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.92 of 2021 pending on the file of I Additional

Special Judge, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in the

said C.C. Offence alleged against the petitioner herein

is under sections 7(a) and 12 of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegation

levelled against the petitioner herein is that, she has

received money on behalf of the accused No.1 and kept

the same in the almariah. According to the

prosecution, the petitioner herein has conscious

possession of the bribe amount and knowledge of the

same. She has received the said amount from LW.1.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would

submit that there was no demand by the petitioner

herein and mere possession of tainted currency notes

would not constitute the alleged offence. He has also

placed reliance upon the judgment in J. Srinivas Rao

Vs. The State1. He would further submit that the

contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the

offence against the petitioner herein. There is no

allegation against the petitioner herein that she had

received the amount which is bribe amount on behalf

of the account No.1. In the counter filed by the 2nd

2020(1) Andh LD (Criminal) 507

respondent, it is specifically mentioned that the

petitioner herein i.e A-2 has not demanded any illegal

gratification and the 2nd respondent never complained

against her. AO-1 alone is liable for prosecution.

6. Whereas the learned Special Public

Prosecutor for ACB cases would submit that the

petitioner herein is having conscious possession of the

tainted currency and she is having knowledge that the

same is bribe amount. There is electronic evidence

against the petitioner herein. The defences taken by

the petitioners are triable issues and same cannot be

considered in a petition under section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. The petitioner has to face the

trial and prove her innocence. Instead of proving so,

she has filed the present petition to quash the

proceedings in C.C. No.92 of 2021. With the said

submissions, he sought to dismiss the present

petition.

7. As stated above, prima facie there is specific

allegation against the petitioner herein/A-2. There is

no dispute with regard to receipt of tainted currency

money by the petitioner herein on behalf of the

accused No.1. Whether she has knowledge that the

said amount is a bribe amount and that she has

conscious possession of the same or not, is a triable

issue, which this Court cannot consider in a petition

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

defences taken by the petitioner herein are triable

issues and petitioner has to take the said defences

before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to

consider the same. The defences taken by the

petitioner herein cannot be considered in a petition

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The

said principle was also held by the Apex Court in

Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of

Maharashtra2, wherein the Apex Court has

. AIR 2019 SC 847

categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings

was called for only in a case where complaint did not

disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or

oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not

constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken

by Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash

the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous

analysis of case should be done before trial to find out

whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal.

If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and

consideration of allegations therein, in light of the

statement made on oath that the ingredients of the

offence are disclosed, there would be no justification

for the High Court to interfere. The defences that

might be available, or facts/aspects which when

established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were

not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold.

At that stage, the only relevant question was whether

averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a

criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider

whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences

that were alleged against the respondents.

Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to

be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of

issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle

proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions

made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints

could not be quashed only on the ground that,

allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.

If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were

prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding

shall not be interdicted.

8. According to the learned Special Pubic

Prosecutor, there is an electronic evidence to prove

that the petitioner herein had received the amount

which is a bribe amount and it is a triable issue which

this Court cannot consider in a petition under Section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment

relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is

after completion of the trial. Therefore the same is not

useful to the petitioner.

9. In view of the above said discussions, more

particularly, considering the fact that prima facie,

there is specific allegation against the petitioner

herein, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings in C.C. No.92 of 2021. Viewed from any

angle, the present petition is liable to dismissed.

10. In the result, the Criminal Petition is

dismissed.

11. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending

if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 30.06.2022

BDR