Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 34 (AP)

V. Ramesh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-01-22

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 to quash all further proceedings in C.C. No. 27 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Aluru, Kurnool District. 2. This Court has heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-1st respondent and Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 3. The petitioners before this Court are said to be employees of the State. 4. The gist of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police and petitioners 2 and 3 are the Village Revenue Officers and were involved in the arrest of the 2nd respondent in a case of counterfeit currency. The 1st petitioner arrested the 2nd respondent and petitioners 2 and 3 were the panchayatdars to the panchnama. The said case was closed as a mistake of fact. Thereafter, a private complaint is filed by the 2nd respondent, which is taken on file by the Court. The proceedings in the private complaint lead to C.C. No. 27 of 2017. The gravamen of the submission of the learned counsel is that all the three petitioners are the public servants and that therefore without prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. no prosecution would lie. Therefore, he prays for quashing. 5. In reply to this, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued on the basis of Romesh Lal Jain vs. Naginder Singh Rana and Others, (2006) 1 SCC 294 and Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs. State of West Bengal and Another, (2009) 3 SCC 398 that the sanction can be obtained much later also. It is his contention that each case has to be judged on its own facts and that whether the offence complained of is a part of official duty or not is a matter which in the submission of the learned counsel should be left to the trial Court. Therefore, he argues on the basis of the case laws that quashing of the proceedings is not called for. Learned Public Prosecutor also supports this and argues on similar lines. 6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that quashing of entire proceedings on the basis of a an alleged want of sanction at this stage is not called for. Learned Public Prosecutor also supports this and argues on similar lines. 6. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel notices that quashing of entire proceedings on the basis of a an alleged want of sanction at this stage is not called for. Whether the actions complained of fall within the part of the official duties of the petitioners are not is a matter, in the opinion of this Court, is best left to the trial Court. In the judgments cited also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the question of want of a sanction is open to be decided at different stages of the case. Whether the offence complained of is a part of the official duty or not is also a matter which depends on the evidence letting during the trial. The decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in Kalisetti Apparao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 6446 of 2015 holds that merely on the ground of want of prior sanction the entire proceedings cannot be quashed. It is a question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the charge sheet has already been filed in this case and serious allegations are there about the manner in which the accused was arrested etc., this Court is of the pinion that this is a fit case which should go for trial. The petitioners are not entitled for any orders. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.