The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, and quashing of FIR should be exercised sparingly.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short ‘Cr.P.C’]has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and 10, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District registered for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘IPC’]

2. Heard Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned counsel representing Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that there are disputes between the family of Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1 for the last 25 years. Learned counsel would further submit that prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence do not attract against the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and they are not the parties to the alleged disputes. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.6 is working as Village Secretary in Pulakunta Panchayat, and he was on duty at the relevant time. Petitioner/Accused No.8 is a Software Engineer in Bangalore and Petitioner/Accused No.10 is working as Village Volunteer. All the Petitioners are respectable persons and were falsely implicated in the present crime. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations for short ‘Cr.P.C’ against the Petitioners and hence, continuation of proceedings against them is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another, [(2010) 8 SCC 628], Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, State of West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 18.

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that this is a premature stage to decide the culpability of the Petitioners in the alleged crime. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the complaint discloses the names of the Petitioners. It is submitted that, in view of the stay granted, the investigation has not been completed and unless the same is completed, the presence of the Petitioners at the time of the alleged incident cannot be revealed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6, 8 and 10 in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of Somandepalli Police Station, Ananthapur District?

Determination by the Court

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various