2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18833

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
Peruri Sreerama Murthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Petition No: 2596 of 2021

The High Court may exercise its inherent power to quash criminal proceedings when allegations are inherently improbable, contradictory, or where the uncontroverted facts establish that the petitioner could not have committed the alleged offence, thereby preventing the abuse of the legal process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Test to be applied at preliminary stage - Whether uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish offence - When chances of ultimate conviction are bleak, allowing prosecution to continue is abuse of process of Court. (Paras 20, 21, 28, 29)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of proceedings - Internal contradiction in prosecution's case - Factual impossibility for accused to have committed offences during alleged period when they were not in service or present at the relevant project site - Need to prevent criminal processes from being used as weapon of harassment. (Paras 51, 54, 59, 74)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired government servant, sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against him for alleged offences involving corruption, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and conspiracy related to a government project. The petitioner argued that he had been transferred out of the project division prior to the date when the procurement decision was taken and the alleged offences were committed. The prosecution contended that the fraudulent estimates were prepared during the petitioner's tenure, despite the lack of specific overt acts attributed to him in the charge sheet.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the chronological facts rendered the petitioner's involvement a factual and logical impossibility. The prosecution's case contained an irreconcilable internal contradiction regarding the timeline of the alleged offences and the petitioner's service period. Furthermore, the absence of departmental disciplinary proceedings and the omission of the petitioner's name from the original complaint suggested that the criminal prosecution was not based on credible evidence.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. due to the lack of prima facie evidence, the presence of irreconcilable internal contradictions in the charge sheet, and whether the continuation of such proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where allegations in a charge sheet are inherently improbable, contradictory, and logically impossible, the High Court is duty-bound to exercise its inherent power to prevent a miscarriage of justice. An accused cannot be subjected to the ordeal of a trial when the uncontroverted allegations fail to establish a prima facie case or involve a role that is physically impossible to perform due to chronological discrepancies.

Result: Criminal petition allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner stand quashed.