The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The court found no material showing the petitioner's presence, participation, or prior conspiracy in the offence charged.
The criminal proceedings in S.C.No.340/2010 were quashed insofar as they concerned the petitioner/A7.
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 M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9560 OF 2012
ORDER:
This is a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) by the petitioner/A7 requesting to quash the proceedings in S.C.No.340/2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District taken on file for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’).
2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A7 and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
3 . Now the point for determination is as to – Whether the petitioner/A7 has made out valid and sufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings in S.C.No.340/2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District in so far as the petitioner/A7 is concerned?
4. POINT:
4. (a) It is stated in the charge sheet as follows: “On 08.06.2008, LWs 1 to 4 and other relatives, nearly 50 in number, came to Bandi Mutyalamma Temple of Mutyalapalli Village to fulfil the vow of their second Son, Juvvadi Narayanamurthy. After attending to the rituals and after some of them completing their meals and while some of them are taking their meal, the incident had occurred when A3 dragged one chair resulting in A1 falling on the entire row of chairs placed at that site. At that time when A1 uttered filthy
words, LW1 had admonished A1 and sent them away. But, later A1 to A14 had formed into an unlawful assembly. Having armed with deadly weapons like iron rods, kaizarus and sticks and with an intention to kill LW1, and having proclaimed that they will kill LW1, A1 had beat LW1 with an iron rod and caused bleeding head injury to him. And, at that time, when LW2 tried to intervene and come to the rescue of LW1, A2 had beat him with an iron rod over his head and caused a bleeding head injury; and, when LW3 intervened, A3 had beat him with an iron rod over his head and also on his left foot joint and had caused bleeding injuries. When LW4 interfered and tried to rescue, A4 had beat LW4 with an iron rod over his head and had caused bleeding head injury to him. They all had proclaimed that they would kill the entire family of LW1. The said incident was witnessed by LWs 5 to 8.’
4. (b) The learned counsel for the petitioner/A7 contended that the name of the petitioner/A7 has not been stated either in the First Information lodged with the police or in the FIR or in the statements of witnesses recorded by the police during the course of investigation and that even if the entire allegations in the FIR, the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses are taken as true and correct, no case is made out against the petitioner/A7 and hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/A7 is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
4. (c) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent-State had submitted that there are allegations to the effect that all the accused had formed into an unlawful assembly and that though the name of petitioner/A7 is not mentioned, the A7 instead of approaching the trial Court for his discharge, had directly come to this Court.
4. (d) In reply, the learned counsel for A7 would submit that A14 had filed a similar petition in Crl.P.No.11747/2010 and that this Court had allowed the said petition and had quashed the proceedings against A14 and that the case of A7 stands on the same footing as that of A14 and that, therefore, A7 is also entitled to a similar relief.
4. ( e ) I have perused the FIR, the charge sheet and the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during the course of investigation. No witness has stated about the presence and participation of the petitioner in the offence. No overt acts were attributed to A7. There is no material to show that the petitioner shared common object with the other accused with an intention to commit the offence; and there is also no material to show that he was a member of the unlawful assembly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the case of A7 stands on the same footing as that of A14, inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised in a case of this nature and the proceedings against the A7 can be quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice.
5 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in S.C.No.340 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District in so far as the petitioner/A7 is concerned.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
Date: 16.12.2014
MVA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sufficient grounds exist to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner despite the absence of direct allegations against him in the FIR and charge sheet.
Whether the petitioner shares the common object with other accused or was a member of the unlawful assembly.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief granted in a similar prior case filed by another accused in the same matter.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A7
State
M.Seetharama Murti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
