APHC010666482022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9871/2022 Between:

1. B.SREENIVASULU, O/O. (ELECTRICAL A.E), GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE MAHANANDI MANDAL, KARNOOL DISTRICT.

2. NAGARAJU, ELECTRICAL LINEMEN, GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE, MAHANANDI MANDLA, KARNOOL DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.,BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATHI.

2. BHUPANI SRINIVASULU, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAHA, AGED ABOUT

20 YEARS, GAJULAPALLI VILLAGE, MAHANANDI MANDAL, NANDYALA TOWN, KARNOOL DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

ORDER

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short ‘Cr.P.C’ is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for short ‘IPC’

2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1. The notice which was sent to Respondent No.2 was returned as „refused‟.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the Petitioners have no role in the alleged offence. Learned counsel would further submit that Accused No.1 was committing theft of electricity by drawing a wire from a transformer and while the deceased was loading the sand during midnight, he came into contact with the livewire which was drawn by Accused No.1 and died due to electrocution. It is submitted that, the investigating officer, after due investigation, having found no prima facie case against the Petitioners, shown them in the charge sheet as Not Charged Accused. Learned counsel would finally submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioners. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners.

4. Contrasting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during investigation.

Therefore, the proceedings against the Petitioners, at this stage, cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss 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 proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.2152 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal?

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. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others³ is consid