K. Rama Venkateswara Reddy vs State of A.P.

M. Satyanaraya Murthy, J.—This Criminal Petition, under Petitioner. Section 482 of Code of Criminal, Procedure, 1973 (for short, ''Cr.P.C'') is filed 2017 (1) Hyd. Law Times (Crl) (Monthly) "�FEB. to quash the proceedings in Criminal No. 180 of 2016 of Banaganapalli Police Station, Kurnool District, registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC)

The de facto complainant, who is in charge Executive Officer of Grampanchayat Board, Banaganapalle, lodged a complaint on 07-09-2016 alleging that one K. Rama Venkateshwara Reddy, the petitioner herein, is installing a Batch Mix and Hot Mix plant 100 HPEM in the name and style of M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Constructions in Sy.NO.267/1 of Banumukkala Village. The de facto complainant learnt that the said person has applied for the licenses and permissions with the Departments concerned under single window system, he has not applied or placed any plans or requisitions with the office of Grampanchayat so far, despite he is making illegal constructions in the above stated Sy.No.267/1 without any approved plan or permission from the Grampanchayat. All the connected Departments are clearly instructed the petitioner that final approval has to be obtained from the Grampanchayat apart from its clearance. It is also contended that the petitioner continuing his illegal unauthorized construction and the de facto complainant informed the petitioner by means of notice to stop constructions and requested the concerned Police to provide Bandhobasth, for which the individual has placed the order copy of this Court in W.P.No.20142 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016. Later, on enquiry, he came to know from the Standing Counsel of Grampanchayat that the petitioner produced an application dated 15.07.2016 alleged to have been submitted with this Office. On keen observation of the seal on the explanation, and the seal pertaining to this Office, both are not tallying with that of the seal on application dated 15.07.2016 and he believed that the seal was manipulated in order to obtain order from this Court, and that therefore, he committed offences under the above stated provisions and prayed to take action against the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted an application and obtained office seal acknowledging the receipt of the application. But the suspicion of the Officer of the Grampanchayat, Banaganapalli, is that the seal on the application does not bear the seal of the Office.

Curiously, during pendency of the complaint, the petitioner applied under Right To Information Act, 2005 calling for information, whether the explanation dated 15.07.2016 submitted by M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Constructions bears the seal of the Gram Panchayat Office. The Office of Grampanchayat, Banaganapalle, issued certificate dated 06.10.2016 in RC No.22/ 16 certifying that the application dated 15.07.2016 bears the seal of Gram Panchayat Office, Banaganapalli. This itself suffice to conclude that the petitioner made an application to the Grampanchayat Office, Banaganapalli, for information and it bears the seal of Grampanchayat office, as certified by the Executive Officer of Banaganapalli, vide Certificate, dated 06.10.2016 referred above. Therefore, continuation of proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law.

This Court exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the process of any court, and to secure the ends of justice. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniszoamy and others AIR 1977 SC 1489, this court has held as under;-

"In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court''s inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achive a saluatary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. The compelling necessity for making these observations is that without a proper realization of the object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice between the State and its subjects it would be impossible to appreciate the width and contours of that salient jurisdiction."

If the principle laid down in the above Judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, the de facto complainant himself certified that the application submitted by the petitioner bears the Office seal of Grampanchayat, Banaganapalli, is not entitled to prosecute the proceedings on the ground that seal is fabricated and not that of Grampanchayat Office, Banaganapalli, and if such practise is allowed, it would amount to abuse of process of court.

Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings by exercising inherent power, which is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice, for administration of which alone Courts exist. Wherever any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent such abuse. Hence, the proceedings in Cr.No.180 of 2016 of Banaganapalli Police Station, Kurnool District, is liable to be quashed exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.