Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 866 (AP)

Pandiri Arjunudu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-12-28

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 456 of 2019 on the file of Prohibition and Excise Police Station, Pithapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Excise Act 1968. 2. The case of the petitioner before this Court is that he is Accused No. 2 in the above crime for various offences stated above and the said crime was registered by the respondent-Pithapuram Police station, Pithapuram. The allegations of the respondent is that on 10.12.2019 at about 7.15 p.m. the police have raided the house of the accused and found A.1, whereas A.2, the petitioner herein, escaped from the place of offence, and during search of the house, they found five urea mica bags each with 4 polythene covers, each containing 10 litres of I.D. liquor, totalling 200 litres of I.D. Liquor, and on enquiry, A.1 revealed his identity and stated that the I.D. liquor was brought by the petitioner/A.2 and A.3 and all of them are selling in Pithapuram for profit. Therefore, the crime was registered, and at this stage, the petitioner sought for quashing of the proceedings in the above crime on different grounds. The first ground is that the petitioner/A.2 is the brother of A.1, brother-in-law of A.3 and is permanent resident of Indiranagar, Pithapuram and that he was falsely implicated in the above crime. He also raised several other contentions with regard to possession and that the other accused A.1 was already enlarged on bail in connection with the above crime on account of discrepancies and requested to quash the proceedings in the above crime. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 4. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions of the petition, whereas, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the petition on the ground that, at this stage of crime, the proceedings cannot be quashed when there is prima facie material against this petitioner to proceed further, and requested to dismiss the petition. 5. The petitioner is Accused No. 2 and allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Excise Act. 5. The petitioner is Accused No. 2 and allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 7(A) read with 8(e) of A.P. Excise Act. The punishment for the offence is more than seven years as per the amended provisions, however, the main allegation is that the petitioner brought the I.D. liquor of 200 litres along with A.3 and kept the same in the house of A.1 and selling the same at Pithapuram for profit. The petitioner is the alleged accused who brought I.D. liquor and kept in the house of A.1, the role of the petitioner is to be investigated, therefore on the ground that, he was falsely implicated, the Court cannot quash the proceedings, and it is question of fact and finding is to be recorded only after full pledged trial. 6. Mere enlargement of A.1 on bail by the Magistrate in the above crime, is also not a ground to quash the proceedings against this petitioner, more particularly, when investigation is at foetus stage. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kurukshetra University & Another v. State of Haryana & another : AIR 1977 SC 2229 , and similarly in the case of State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo : (2005) 13 SCC 540 wherein, the Apex Court in the two judgments, made it clear that normally the Court will not interdict the process of law and cannot quash the proceedings when investigation is not yet commenced, more particularly, when the allegations made in the complaint discloses commission of offence prima facie or allegation to constitute the offence punishable under any penal law. 7. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, when the investigation has not been commenced, the Court cannot quash the proceedings since complete material is not before this Court. Hence, by applying the principles laid down by the above judgments, I find, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against this petitioner for various offences referred above, as investigation is not yet completed; consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. With the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.