Allowed

Golusu Upender v. Assistant Sub - Inspector of Police

Telangana HC17 Mar 2021CRLP/1734/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings against four petitioners accused of offences under Sections 270 and 273 of the IPC. Relying on Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State of Telangana, the court held police were incompetent to investigate acts falling under the Food Safety and Standards Act. Proceedings in C.C.No.2179 of 2020 and an interim application for return of property were disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2179 of 2020 and interim application I.A.No.2 of 2021 are quashed.

Golusu Upender Vs Assistant Sub - Inspector of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1734 oF 2021

alonq with

l.A.No.2 of 2021

Between:

Golusu Upender, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged 35^{yrs, Yadav,Occ: Business,} Rl/o. Thirumalayapalem Village, Khammam District

¶11

Chikka Sandeep, S/o Ranga Rao,^{Aged 35 Years, Vyshya, Occ. Business,} R/o. H.No 4-3-68/1 , Near Bose Bomma^{Center Khammam lllTown,} Khammam District

¶12

Pittala Had Haran @Nani, S/o.^{Chinnal Swany, Aged about 24 Years,} Occ: Driver, H.No 5-120, Pandurangapuram^{village, KhammamTown'} Khammam District

¶13

Alli Ramesh, S/o. Yaladiri, Aged about^{22 Years, Occ. Driver, Fl/o.3-25011'} Tbirumalayapalein Village Khammam District

¶14

PETITIONERYACCUSED 1 TO 4

¶15

AND

¶16

Assistant Sub - lnspector of Police,^{Thirumalayapalem Police Station, Khammam} District.

¶17

..., RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.

¶18

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by lts Public Prosecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad

¶19

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition, the HighCourtmaybe pleased} to^quash the^proceedings against the^{Petitioners in Crime No.92 of 2020 of P.S} Thirumalayapalem Police Station,^{Khammam District.}

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the^{lVlemorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe arguments of Smt. C. Sunitha} Kumari, Advocate for the Petitioner and the^{Public Prosecutor on behalf of the} Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent^{No. 2.}

¶22

The Court made the following: COMMON^ORDER

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1.734 OF 2O2t along with I.A.No.2 of 2O2L

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

This Criminal Petition is filed under Secti on 4g2 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2lZ9 ol 2020 on the file of the Principal Magistrare ol First Class (pDM) at Khammam against the petitioners/ accused Nos.1 to 4. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 27O and 273 of IpC.

¶27

2 I.A.No.02 of 2021 is filed for return of seized property.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the subject matter is squarely covered by a common order in Chidurala Shyamsubder v. State ofTelanganar rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra pradesh, and placed copy of the said judgment for perusai.

¶29

4 . In Chidurala Shyamsubder,s case (supra), a learned Single Judge of the High Court, follou'ing the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.

¶30

'^{Crl.P.No.i73tof20l8} & batch, decided on 27.08.2C1t8

¶31

Bhajan Lal2, held that the Police are incompetent to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 45 and 59(1) of the Food Safety and Standards^(FSS) Act, 2006, investigating into the offences along with other offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and filing charge sheet is grave i1lega1ity, as the Food Officer^aloneis competent to investigate and to file charge sheet^followingthe Rules laid down under Sections 41 and 42 of FSS^Act, whereas, in the present case, the Police have registered the crime for the offences under Sections 270 and 273 of^IPC. Therefore, the said proceedings in C.C.No.2l79 of^2O2O against the petitioners herein are contrary to^{the principle} held by the learned Single Judge of the High Courtⁱⁿ Chidurala Shyamsubder^(supra) and, accordingly, the^same are liable to be quashed.

¶32

In view of the above submission, the^{present Criminal} Petition is allowed in terms ol the^judgment in Chidurala Shyamsubder (supra), and the^{proceedings in C.C.No.2179 of} 2O2O on the file of the Principal First Class^{Magistrate(PDM)} at Khammam, are hereby^quashed against^{the petitioners/} accused Nos. 1 to 4.

¶33

6, Since the proceedings in C.C.No.2l79 of^{2O2O ate} quashed against the petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 to 4,^I'A'No.2 I 1992 supp. (l) scc 335

¶34

of 2O2l is closed^{and the petitioners are at liberty to file} appropriate application^{before the Court belowfor returnof} seized property^{and the learned Magistrateshall consider the} same and reiease^{the said property to the petitionerson} verifying the documents^{with regard to ownership of the said} property.

¶35