Mudhavath Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2307 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2307 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 June, 2024

Telangana High Court

Mudhavath Thirupathi vs The State Of Telangana, on 20 June, 2024

          THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.3451 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code

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

proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 5 in

C.C.No.77 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy

District, registered for the offences punishable under Section

353 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the

IPC') and Section 34 (a) of the Telangana State Excise Act,

1968 (for short 'the Act').

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2023,

respondent No.2, SI of Police, Wanaparthy Rural Police

Station, received credible information about selling of illegal

liquor in Chityala Village of Wanaparthy Mandal. On receipt

of the said information, the staff of respondent No.2 rushed to

the said place and raided on the Sevalal Naik Dhaba. Accused

No.1 is the owner of the hotel and accused No.2 is the

husband of accused No.1 and they were selling the illicit

liquor in their hotel to customers at excess rates to gain more

SKS,J

money without having any valid permits from the concerned

authorities. Respondent No.2 searched the hotel and found

different brands of liquor in the hotel. During the

panchanama, accused No.2 came and abused the Police

personals in filthy language and obstructed their legitimate

duties, threatened them with dire consequences and fled away

from the spot. Thereafter, in the presence of mediators, the

Police conducted confessional panchanama and also seized

the illicit liquor bottles. In the meantime, accused Nos.2 to 5

came there and obstructed the duties of the Police. Basing on

the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime

No.114 of 2023 and after completion of investigation, they

filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.77 of 2024 before the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy.

3. Heard Sri Madhirala Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S.

Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on

behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a

bare perusal of the complaint shows that respondent No.2

created a false narration and implicated the petitioners in the

SKS,J

case. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 is doing

agricultural work in the village, petitioner No.2 is a business

man and due to the present case, their reputation was

damaged in the society. Therefore, he prayed the Court to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

submitted that the complaint itself shows that the petitioners

were involved in selling of illicit liquor and they obstructed the

Police during the seizure of Panchanama. Therefore, the

allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in

nature, which requires trial, as such, prayed the Court to

dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both

the learned counsel and having gone through the material

available on record, 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

as alleged by the Police.

7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the

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

SKS,J

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 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."

8. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is to be noted that

when the Police personals were conducting panchnama, the

petitioners came there, abused them and also obstructed

them in conducting panchnama and doing their legitimate

duties. A perusal of the charge sheet also shows that the

petitioners obstructed the Police in discharging their duties.

Therefore, there are specific allegations leveled against the

petitioners. At this stage, it cannot be said that there are no

allegations against the petitioners and the same requires trial.

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS,J

9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid