Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 920 (AP)

P. Pattabhi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-09-16

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in Crime No.50 of 2013 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District, for the offences punishable under Ss. 147, 148, 435, 109 and 353 read with Sec. 149 of The Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C.") and Sec. 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sec. 135(1) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. On a report lodged by respondent No.2, who was deputed as Polling Officer Stage-2 to conduct Sarpanch elections at Alathur village, the case in Crime No.50 of 2013 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District was registered. It is alleged in the report lodged by the defacto complainant that on 23/7/2013 after completing the counting process, winning candidate was declared, and the declaration copy was affixed at the entrance of the school building, some unknown mob around 300 members both male and female formed themselves into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons like stones, sticks and attacked the Polling station, damaged the doors of MPUP School, obstructed the polling staff and bundobust staff while discharging their legitimate duties and took out the ballot boxes, broken them and damaged the ballot papers and other materials. Basing on the report given by respondent No.2, the above crime was registered by the police and investigation had been taken up. At this stage, the petitioner/A.2 filed this Criminal Petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.50 of 2013 of B.N.Kandriga Police Station, Chittoor District. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondentState. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner does not find in the First Information Report and that the case is purely politically motivated further. He would submit that, the petitioner is a practising Advocate at Srikalahasti and previously worked as a Government Pleader and that the petitioner is not the voter of Alathur Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, and he is in noway connected with the crime and the above allegations made against him are false. He would submit that, the petitioner is a practising Advocate at Srikalahasti and previously worked as a Government Pleader and that the petitioner is not the voter of Alathur Village, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, and he is in noway connected with the crime and the above allegations made against him are false. The petitioner being an Advocate, was the counsel, who filed Election Petition before the Election Tribunal, Srikalahasti on behalf the defeated candidate, in the month of August, 2013 and therefore, the rival political party bore grudge against the petitioner and influenced the Police in implicating the petitioner in the above crime. Further, he would submit that, neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned nor specific allegations were made against him, in the complaint given by respondent No.2 and that the offences mentioned in the FIR or the contents of the FIR do not attract the petitioner. The case is falsely foisted against the petitioner so as to implicate in the false case and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed against the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State while opposing the criminal petition submitted that, though the name of the petitioner/Accused No.2 is not mentioned in the FIR, during the course of investigation when the statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., L.W.8- Y.Chenchu Rama Naidu discloses that the defeated candidate went outside from the polling room and A-1, A-2 and others formed into unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons had broken the ballot boxes and took out the ballet boxes, destroyed the polling material, damaged the Government property, and left the place. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/A2. Further, he submitted that, when there is sufficient evidence on record, in proof of complicity of the petitioner in commission of the offence, the matter requires appreciation of evidence during the course of trial and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to quash the above FIR and thereby prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition. 6. It is relevant to note in the present context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in rejecting the criminal petitions, in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, (7) AIR 1992 SC 604 . 7. 6. It is relevant to note in the present context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in rejecting the criminal petitions, in the case of State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others, (7) AIR 1992 SC 604 . 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered, in detail, the provisions of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C and power of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings or F.I.R and the Hon'ble Apex Court, summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash the criminal complaint / petition. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investi- gation by police officers under Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Sec. 155(2) of the Code; (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 8. 8. In the present case, eventhough the names of the assailants are not mentioned in the FIR, as rightly pointed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the eye-witness i.e., L.W.8-Y. Chenchu Rama Naidu had categorically stated in the statement that the petitioner/A2 went into the village, instigated the villagers, formed themselves into unlawful assembly duly armed with deadly weapons and attacked on the Polling Station and looted the counting room and forcibly thrown away the bandobust and polling staff, pelted stones on the room and inside the room, created panic against the staff, had broken the ballot boxes, took the ballot papers and set fire to them. In the light of the above facts, the petitioner/A2 was also one of the assailants among other accused who attacked the polling room. Therefore, the Investigation Officer collected prima facie evidence, during the course of investigation, in proof of complicity of the petitioner herein, in commission of the above offence. 9. It is true that, in a crime committed by an unlawful assembly, by principle of vicarious liability, every member of the unlawful assembly would be guilty of the offence. Even if the petitioner himself had not done any actual act, but the fact must indicate with clarity that such person was in fact a member of the unlawful assembly. The prosecution did allege that the petitioner along with others stormed inside the polling room and damaged the polling material. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner at the best going by the version of L.W.8 - Y.Chenchurama Naidu was outside the polling room where the mob were gathered. Out of the said gathering, 20 persons were named to be the accused on 23/7/2013. Out of them, petitioner's name was shown as Accused No.2. In fact, if no such gathering attacked on the polling room inspite of police bandobust, polling material would not have damaged as stated above and they would not have taken ballot boxes and ballet papers, other polling material and set fire. It shows that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/Accused No.2. Further, the respondent No.2/complainant is an outsider who was deputed as Polling Officer to conduct smooth polling in Alathur Grampanchayat elections. Even if he identified the persons, their names are not known to him. That might be the reason for not mentioning their names in the complaint. 10. Further, the respondent No.2/complainant is an outsider who was deputed as Polling Officer to conduct smooth polling in Alathur Grampanchayat elections. Even if he identified the persons, their names are not known to him. That might be the reason for not mentioning their names in the complaint. 10. In the light of the material evidence available on record and in the backdrop of the salient features stated above, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner/Accused No.2 for his involvement in the crime. 11. Therefore, in view of the above guidelines in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others (referred supra), where the allegations made in F.I.R or Complaint and the evidence is collected in support of the same, to disclose the commission of offence and make out a case against the petitioner. None of the guidelines attracted in the present case of nature. Therefore, the proceedings are not liable to be quashed. 12. While exercising the jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C, it is not permissible to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner for a limited purpose and the Court can evaluate the material and the documents on record but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not, for convicting the accused. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the material on record, there are absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating from the record warranting interference of this Court in exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR. 14. However, since the offences mentioned in the petition against the petitioner/Accused No.2 are punishable by less than the period of seven years, the Investigating Officer shall follow the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and follow the procedure prescribed under Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C. 15. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.