Single judge dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The court held the charge sheet evidenced the petitioner's participation in a conspiracy to misappropriate school rice, rejecting the claim of abuse of process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1414 of 2012
(Dated : 07-02-2012)
Between:
Chinnam Veronica W/o Satyam Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District
…Petitioner
A n d State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.1414 of 2012
ORDER:
This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by A-3 in C.C.No.73 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District.
2. A report came to be presented by M.Mukkanti, Tahasildar, Jangareddigudem alleging inter alia rice meant for Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Girls School’s hostel is being diverted through an auto bearing AP7 V 2540. Thereupon, the Revenue Divisional Officer along with LW-1-Mukkanti proceeded to A.P.S.W.Girls School and made a surprise visit. He noticed auto bearing No.AP 7 V 2540 kept in front of the hostel store room. The auto had a load of fifteen rice bags. After conducting panchanama, a report came to be presented by Lw-1-Mukkanti to the Station House Officer, Jangareddigudem P.S. Basing on the said report; a case in Crime No.213 of 2009 came to be registered. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, Jangareddigudem filed charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.73 of 2011.
Hence, this petition by A-3 to quash the proceedings therein. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the investigation does not reveal participation of the petitioner herein and therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.73 of 2011 amounts to abuse of process of law.
5. I have gone through the charge sheet averments and also the list of witnesses enclosed to the charge sheet. The accusation levelled against the petitioner is that he along with other accused conspired together to misappropriate rice meant for use in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Girls School of Jangareddigudem. The students of the School have been examined during the course of investigation. They are listed at Sl.Nos.5 to 8 in the list of witnesses. They speak of the participation of the petitioner in the conspiracy to misappropriate rice meant for use in Social Welfare Girls’ Hostel, at Jangareddigudem. Indeed A-1 and A-2 seems to have made an effort to quash the proceedings and their efforts proved to be futile. This fact is evident from para (6) of the charge sheet. In that view of the matter, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.73 of 2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangareddigudem.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.07-02-2012 RAR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner amounts to an abuse of process of law given the lack of evidence of his participation in the conspiracy.
Whether the court should interfere with the trial proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. based on the petitioner's submission of no investigative evidence against him.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chinnam Veronica
State of A.P.
B. Seshasayana Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
