G.Venkataiah vs The State Of Telangana,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2197 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2197 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

G.Venkataiah vs The State Of Telangana, on 12 June, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
           CRIMINAL PETITION No.6514 OF 2023



ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in

C.C.No.94 of 2023 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate

of First Class, at Tandur, Vikarabad District, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 408 read with

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent

NO.2/de facto complainant who is the Chairman of the Primary

Agricultural Credit Societies (for short 'PACS'), Basheerabad

Mandal, lodged a complaint stating that a program was

organized by the PACS, Basheerabad Mandal, to buy chickpeas

in which several farmers came forward to sell their chickpeas

but it was found that the petitioner/accused NO.3 along with

accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a plan to gain easy money by

selling the chickpeas to other people by falsifying the weight and

cheating the farmers.

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6514 OF 2023

3. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the

matter and on completion of due investigation a charge sheet

was filed against the petitioner whereunder the petitioner was

arrayed as accused NO.2. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal

Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for

petitioner/accused No.3, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and

Sri Rajgopalan Tayi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that neither the

charge sheet, nor the complaint averments disclose that the

petitioner has purchased chickpeas from the farmers and sold

the same in the market and obtained profits from the same. He

contended that except alleging that the petitioner had intentions

to obtain wrongful gains by selling chickpeas in the market,

there is no material filed to prove the same. He asserted that the

prime ingredients that cater to a criminal offence are categorized

in four parts viz., intention, preparation, attempt and

commission. In addition, he lamented that the averments of

charge sheet and complaint would only attract the intention and

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6514 OF 2023

at the most preparation ingredients. He reiterated that no

offence as alleged against the petitioner attracts in the present

case, as such, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1, and the learned

counsel appearing for respondent NO.2, respectively, submitted

that initially the Police apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 who

confessed their guilt and thereafter, the Police, on receipt of

credible information, apprehended the petitioner/accused No.3

and enquiry, he has also admitted his guilt. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor asserted that in support of the

allegations levelled against the petitioner/accused No.3, the

statements of the witnesses are filed which would clearly prove

his guilt. Therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going

through the material placed on record, it is noted that during the

course of the investigation the identities of the

petitioner/accused No.3, along with accused Nos.1 and 2 were

well established and that they were working as employees in

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6514 OF 2023

Nawandgi PACS, at Basheerabad Mandal, who hatched a plan to

gain easy money by selling the chickpeas of the farmers to the

other people by falsifying the weight of the chickpeas. The

averments of the charge sheet would reveal that when LW-12

received credible information, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were

apprehended and their statement was recorded wherein, they

admitted commission of offence. Further, accused Nos.1 and 2

stated that on instructions of accused No.3 they have falsely

weighted chickpeas.

8. In addition, it is needless to mention that to quash the

proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see

whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that

it constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged

by the Police. That being so, it is imperative to note the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as

follows:

"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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J Crl.P.No.6514 OF 2023

under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to

be used sparingly, carefully and 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."

9. In the present case, it is noted that though learned

counsel for petitioner/accused NO.3 contends that the case is

based on vague allegations, and it is only at the stage of