IMPORTANT POINT
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of trial Judge.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 read with Section 149 –Prosecution of respondent accused persons along with others for assaulting appellant with rods and sticks- While the case was pending for trial, Respondent Nos. 1-3 Filed Petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings against them- Allowed by High Court-Appeal – On going through entire complaint, materials collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement of witnesses and by conjoint reading of all materials, it could not be presumed that there was no legal and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution-High Court exceeded its power in quashing criminal proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution had not been made out- High Court also committed an error in assuming that with the materials available, prosecution could not end in conviction-Conclusion arrived at by High Court held unsustainable- Impugned order quashing criminal proceedings against Respondents set aside- Appeal allowed. (Paras 25, 26)
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 -Scope and ambit of-When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained- That is the function of the trial Judge - The powers possessed by High Court under Section 482 are very wide and at the same time the power requires great caution in its exercise- The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles- The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution- It would not be proper for High Court to analyse case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. (Para 24)
        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 482 –Inherent Powers- In a proceeding instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash proceedings is called for only in a case in which complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive- There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal- The complaint has to be read as a whole- The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the chargesheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving any conclusion- It is the material concluded during investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused persons (Para 24)
       Facts of the Case :
        Respondent accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case along with others for assaulting appellant with rods and sticks. While the case was pending for trial, Respondent Nos. 1-3 Filed Petition under Section 482 of the Code to quash criminal proceedings against them. Said petition was Allowed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        The Court held that on going through entire complaint, materials collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement of witnesses and by conjoint reading of all materials, it could not be presumed that there was no legal and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution.High Court exceeded its power in quashing criminal proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution had not been made out. High Court also committed an error in assuming that with the materials available, prosecution could not end in conviction. Conclusion arrived at by High Court was held unsustainable. Impugned order quashing criminal proceedings against Respondents was set aside. Appeal was allowed

JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J. —

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 28.10.2010 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2010 wherein the High Court allowed the criminal petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein and quashed the criminal proceedings pending against them.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The appellant, who was a defacto complainant and Respondent Nos. 1-3 (accused persons) are the residents of Komaripalem village of East Godavari District. Though all of them belong to Congress Party, Respondent No. 1, Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (A-1) and Respondent No. 2, Karri Venkata Mukunda Reddy (A-2) developed ill will against the appellant and were jealous of his gaining popularity within the party as well as in their area and neighbourhood. Respondent No. 3, Mallidi Chinna Veera Venkata Satyanarayana (A-3), was initially an associate of the appellant herein but later joined hands with A-1 and A-2.

(b) In the year 2006, the appellant contested Zila Parishad Territorial Constituency Elections as an independent candidate and won it. A-1 and A-2 developed grudge against the appellant and they contracted Valmiki Gujjula Ramayya Kondayya (A-4) who belongs to Emmiganur Mandal of Kurnool District for killing the appellant and gave him Rs. 7,00,000/- to purchase a vehicle and also gave separate amount for hiring goondas. A-4 hired A-5 to A-12 for the said purpose and they conspired together and hatched a plan to assault the appellant. Further, A-3 was entrusted with the responsibility of giving information about the movements of the appellant.

(c) In pursuance of their conspiracy, on 07.11.2007 between 7:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. when the appellant was proceeding in his Honda City car along with his wife and children to attend a function near J.K. Gardens, A-4, A-7 to A-12 who were in a Scorpio Car came across his car. In the meanwhile, A-5 and A-6 also came there on Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle belonging to A-2 where A-4 and A-12 broke the windowpanes of the car while A-5 sprinkled chilly powder into the eyes of the appellant and attacked him with rods and sticks and caused injuries on his vital parts of the body which resulted in bleeding. Thereafter, A-4 to A-12 left the spot. Somehow the appellant managed to escape from the place of incident and went to the house of Jakkampudi Raja Indra Vandir (L.W.-6), who admitted him in the hospital and informed the incident to the SHO, I Town (L&O), Police Station, Rajahmundry.

(d) After completion of investigation, the S.I. filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-12 on 30.08.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 427, 307, 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) before the Court of IInd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajahmundry and the same was taken on file in PRC No. 14 of 2008. The Magistrate committed the case to the Ist Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry for trial and the same was taken on file in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2010.

(e) When the case was pending for trial, Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein preferred Criminal Petition No. 5928 of 2010 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “the Code”) to quash the criminal proceedings against them. The learned single Judge of the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 28.10.2010, allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against Respondent Nos. 1-3 herein (A-1 to A-3). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-complainant has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.

4) Heard Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel for Respondent Nos. 1-3 and Mr. D. Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for Respondent No.4-State.

5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the crimina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 714

2011 (5) Supreme 454SUPREME COURT OF INDIAP. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu — Appellant(s)versusKovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. — Respondent(s)Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2011(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.929 of 2011)Decided on : 29-7-2011

IMPORTANT POINT When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of trial Judge.

Cases Referred (15)

2011 (5) Supreme 454
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu — Appellant(s)
versus
Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 1499 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.929 of 2011)
Decided on : 29-7-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of trial Judge.