S.Linga Murthy vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2052 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2052 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

S.Linga Murthy vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.11082 of 2022


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.2 seeking to

quash the proceedings against him in FIR.No.01/ACB-

KNR/2020 on the file of the ACB Police Station,

Karimnagar, for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections7(a) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (as amended in 2018) (for short 'Act, 2018').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the

respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a

complaint stating that while he was driving his vehicle

bearing No.AP287328 traveling from Karimnagar to

Sircilla, he found a person selling sand and as he was in

need of said sand, he purchased the same and got it

loaded in his vehicle. However, amidst his way when he

reached near Lachupet Village, a CI who is

petitioner/accused No.2 came from opposite direction

SKS,J

and stopped his vehicle and in escort of a gunman, the

respondent No.2 was asked to get into the Police vehicle

through which, they reached Gambhiraopet Police

Station, where an SI was deputed. Later, after several

attempts to retrieve his seized vehicle back, the

respondent NO.2 alleged that the SI went to the room of

CI and came back with an offer to present a bribe of

Rs.25,000/- and take back his vehicle. However, when

the respondent NO.2 expressed is inability to pay the

said amount and offered to give Rs.10,000/- he was

advised to meet SI who refused to reduce the amount

and abused the respondent No.2.

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police

investigated the matter and on completion of

investigation a charge sheet was filed against the

petitioner/accused No.2for the offences punishable

under Section 7(a) of the Act, 2018. Aggrieved thereby,

this Criminal Petition is filed.

SKS,J

4. Heard Sri Venu Madhav, learned counsel

representing Smt. Divya Adepu, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.2, and Sri Sridhar Chikyala,

learned Standing Counsel for ACB, appearing for

respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of

respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

the averments of the complaint do not contain any

specific allegation against the petitioner where he is

demanding illegal gratification from respondent No.2. He

further submitted that Section 7(a) of the Act, 2018

mandates that there must be demand and acceptance of

illegal gratification but the same is nowhere seen through

the averments of the chargesheet. He contended that the

on 3.12.2020 i.e., the day of trap proceedings, the audio

verbatim discloses that the petitioner was not present at

all and the entire conversation was between the

complainant and the other accused. As such, prayed

this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the

proceedings against the petitioner.

SKS,J

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing

Counsel for ACB, appearing for respondent No.1

submitted that there are serious allegations against the

petitioner/accused No.2 with regard to the bribe taken

for the purpose of non-seizure of the vehicle of

respondent No.2. Heasserted that the allegationleveled

against the petitioner/accused No.2 whetherhe is part of

the bribe demanded requires full-fledged trial.Therefore,

prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made

and on going through the material placed on record, it is

noted that the primary contention of petitioner/accused

is that he is not involved in the activity of taking bribe

from the respondent No.2, whereas, the contention of

respondent NO.2 is that though the petitioner/accused

No.2 was not directly involved in the monetary

transactions but he was actively involved in the

conversation that took place between the SI and the

respondent No.2.

8. That apart, perusal of the record filed by the

learned Standing Counsel for ACB, such as,copies of the

SKS,J

Mediator Reports I and II and also the verbatim

statements dated 28.12.2019 and 03.1.2020 would

disclose that the petitioner/accused No.2could be a part

of the said bribery and the said issue can be decided only

afterfull-fledged trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that

the petitioner is no way concerned with the offence.

9. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to

quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the

Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint

would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the

Police constitutes.

10. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra

Kori 1, paragraph No.14 reads as under:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a

Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in

several judgments, held that the inherent

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though

wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and

(2012) 10 SCC 155

SKS,J

with caution. The High Court, under Section

482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from

giving a prima facie decision in a case where

the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more

so when the evidence has not been collected

and produced before the Court and the issues

involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide

magnitude and cannot be seen in their true

perspective without sufficient material."