Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu vs Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors

Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy & Ors. .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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.

1 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

2

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.

3 (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 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 criminal

proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 1-3 (A1-A3) by

invoking jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code?

Discussion about Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6) Section 482 of the Code deals with inherent power of

High Court. It is under Chapter XXXVII of the Code titled

"Miscellaneous" which reads as under:

"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court-

Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect

the inherent powers of the High Court to make such

orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order

under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of

any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

This section was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure

(Amendment) Act of 1923 as the High Courts were unable to

render complete justice even if in a given case the illegality

was palpable and apparent. This section envisages three

5

circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be

exercised, namely:

1. to give effect to any order under Cr.P.C.,

2. to prevent abuse of the process of any court,

3. to secure the ends of justice.

7) In R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC

866=(1960) 3 SCR 388, this Court laid down the following

principles:-

"(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal

proceedings against an accused may amount to the

abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of

the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of

justice;

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar

against the institution or continuance of the said

proceeding, e.g. want of sanction;

(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report

or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in

their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but

there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence

adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge."

8) In State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy & Ors. 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,

6

both in civil and criminal matters is designed to achieve a

salutary 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 realisation 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."

Though the High Court has inherent power and its scope is

very wide, it is a rule of practice that it will only be exercised

in exceptional cases. Section 482 is a sort of reminder to the

High Courts that they are not merely courts of law, but also

courts of justice and possess inherent powers to remove

injustice. The inherent power of the High Court is an

inalienable attribute of the position it holds with respect to the

courts subordinate to it. These powers are partly

administrative and partly judicial. They are necessarily judicial

when they are exercisable with respect to a judicial order and

for securing the ends of justice. The jurisdiction under Section

7 482 is discretionary, therefore the High Court may refuse to

exercise the discretion if a party has not approached it with

clean hands.

9) In a proceeding under Section 482, the High Court will

not enter into any finding of facts, particularly, when the

matter has been concluded by concurrent finding of facts of

two courts below. Inherent powers under Section 482 include

powers to quash FIR, investigation or any criminal proceedings

pending before the High Court or any court subordinate to it

and are of wide magnitude and ramification. Such powers can

be exercised to secure ends of justice, prevent abuse of the

process of any court and to make such orders as may be

necessary to give effect to any order under this Code,

depending upon the facts of a given case. Court can always

take note of any miscarriage of justice and prevent the same

by exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Code. These

powers are neither limited nor curtailed by any other

provisions of the Code. However such inherent powers are to

be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution.

8 10) It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section

482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available

to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is

provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent

with specific provisions provided under the Code.- (vide

Kavita v. State (2000 Cr LJ 315) and B.S. Joshi v. State of

Haryana & Anr. ((2003) 4 SCC 675). If an effective alternative

remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers

under this section, specially when the applicant may not have

availed of that remedy.

11) The inherent power 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 the abuse. It is, however, not necessary that at this

stage there should be a meticulous analysis of the case before

the trial to find out whether the case ends in conviction or

acquittal. (Vide Mrs. Dhanalakshmi vs. R. Prasanna Kumar

& Ors. AIR 1990 SC 494; Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S.

Bangarappa & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41; and M/s Zandu

9

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. vs. Md. Sharaful

Haque & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 9).

12) It is neither feasible nor practicable to lay down

exhaustively as to on what ground the jurisdiction of the High

Court under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised. But

some attempts have been made in that behalf in some of the

decisions of this Court vide State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal

(1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary

and Others (1992 (4) SCC 305), Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs.) and

Another vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Another (1995 (6)

SCC 194), and Indian Oil Corp. vs. NEPC India Ltd. and

Others (2006 (6) SCC 736).

13) In the landmark case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan

Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335) this Court considered in detail

the provisions of Section 482 and the power of the High Court

to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. This Court summarized

the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be

followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to

quash a criminal complaint:

10 "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information

report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their

face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima

facie constitute any offence or make out a case against

the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report

and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not

disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation

by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except

under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint

and the evidence collected in support of the same do not

disclose the commission of any offence and make out a

case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a

cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable

offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint

are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of

which no prudent person can ever reach a just

conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of

the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the

institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or

where there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the

grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended

with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is

maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for

wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to

spite him due to private and personal grudge."

14) In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and

Others (2006) 6 SCC 736 a petition under Section 482 was

filed to quash two criminal complaints. The High Court by a

11

common judgment allowed the petition and quashed both the

complaints. The order was challenged in appeal to this Court.

While deciding the appeal, this Court laid down the following

principles:

"1. The High courts should not exercise their inherent

powers to repress a legitimate prosecution. The power to

quash criminal complaints should be used sparingly and

with abundant caution.

2. The criminal complaint is not required to verbatim

reproduce the legal ingredients of the alleged offence. If

the necessary factual foundation is laid in the criminal

complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients

have not been stated in detail, the criminal proceedings

should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is

warranted only where the complaint is bereft of even the

basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out

the alleged offence.

3. It was held that a given set of facts may make out (a)

purely a civil wrong, or (b) purely a criminal offence or (c)

a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial

transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from

furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil

law, may also involve a criminal offence."

15) In State of Orissa & Anr. vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo

(2005) 13 SCC 540, it has been held that probabilities of the

prosecution version cannot be analysed at this stage. Likewise

the allegations of mala fides of the informant are of secondary

importance. The relevant passage reads thus:

12 "It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the

case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in

order to determine whether a conviction would be

sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion

that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be

erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude

that the complaint cannot be proceeded with."

16) In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr. vs.

Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709,

this Court held as under:-

"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution

at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be

applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted

allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is

also for the court to take into consideration any special

features which appear in a particular case to consider

whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to

permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis

that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose

and where in the opinion of the court chances of an

ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful

purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal

prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into

consideration the special facts of a case also quash the

proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage."

17) This Court, while reconsidering the Judgment in

Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia (supra), consistently

observed that where matters are also of civil nature i.e.

matrimonial, family disputes, etc., the Court may consider

"special facts", "special features" and quash the criminal

13

proceedings to encourage genuine settlement of disputes

between the parties.

18) The said Judgment was reconsidered and explained by

this Court in State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Shri P.P. Sharma &

Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260 which reads as under:

"Madhaorao J. Scindhia v. Sambhaji Rao AIR 1988 SC

709, also does not help the respondents. In that case the

allegations constituted civil wrong as the trustees created

tenancy of Trust property to favour the third party. A

private complaint was laid for the offence under Section

467 read with Section 34 and Section 120B I.P.C. which

the High Court refused to quash under Section 482. This

Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings

on the ground that even on its own contentions in the

complaint, it would be a case of breach of trust or a civil

wrong but no ingredients of criminal offences were made

out. On those facts and also due to the relation of the

settler, the mother, the appellant and his wife, as the son

and daughter-in-law, this Court interfered and allowed

the appeal. Therefore, the ratio therein is of no assistance

to the facts in this case. It cannot be considered that this

Court laid down as a proposition of law that in every case

the court would examine at the preliminary stage whether

there would be ultimate chances of conviction on the

basis of allegation and exercise of the power under

Section 482 or Article 226 to quash the proceedings or

the charge-sheet."

Thus, the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia

(supra) does not lay down a law of universal application. Even

as per the law laid down therein, the Court can not examine

the facts/evidence etc. in every case to find out as to whether

14

there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case

would end in conviction. The ratio of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao

Scindia (supra) is applicable in cases where the Court finds

that the dispute involved therein is predominantly civil in

nature and that the parties should be given a chance to reach

a compromise e.g. matrimonial, property and family disputes

etc. etc. The superior Courts have been given inherent powers

to prevent the abuse of the process of court where the court

finds that the ends of justice may be met by quashing the

proceedings, it may quash the proceedings, as the end of

achieving justice is higher than the end of merely following the

law. It is not necessary for the court to hold a fullfledged

inquiry or to appreciate the evidence, collected by the

Investigating Agency to find out whether the case would end in

conviction or acquittal.

Discussion in the case on hand

19) In the light of the above principles, let us consider

whether there are sufficient materials available in the

prosecution case, particularly, in the FIR, chargesheet and

statement of witnesses insofar as respondents herein are

15

concerned. No doubt, in the FIR, the complainant has not

named these respondents as accused. In Column No. 5 of the

FIR under heading "Alleged cause", it is stated that "Alleged to

have been sustained injuries on the head, face due to assault

by unknown persons near J.K. Kalyana Mandapam,

Rajahmundry today (07.11.2007) around 7:00 p.m." Though

the complainant has not specified any name, he had asserted

that while taking a turn from J.N. Road to J.K. Gardens, some

unknown persons kept their maroon color Scorpio car came

across his way at around 7:30 p.m. and about 10 persons got

down from it, while 5 others from auto armed with iron rods

and sticks and they hit the glass on his side to stop him while

he was driving the car. It was also asserted that when he put

down the door glasses, those persons sprinkled chilly powder

on them. After narrating further details, at the end, the

complainant has concluded that those persons conspired

together and attacked with an intention to kill him in a

planned manner. It was further stated that they all appeared

to be goondas and if his wife, children and he himself will see

them again, it would be possible to identify them. If we read

16

all the averments in the FIR, it cannot be claimed that the

complainant has not highlighted the incident said to have

been taken place on 07.11.2007 at around 7:00 p.m.

20) The learned single Judge of the High Court, after

analyzing the FIR, chargesheet and the statement of witnesses

has concluded that the materials placed by the prosecution

are inadequate and ingredients of offence alleged by the

prosecution have not been made out and quashed the

proceedings against respondents. We have already pointed

out the necessary assertion in the complaint and it is true that

the respondents were not named in the complaint.

21) Now, let us consider whether the chargesheet and the

statement of witnesses make out a prima facie case in the light

of principles which we have adverted to in the earlier

paragraphs. After furnishing all the details about the motive

and circumstances, the investigating officer from the materials

collected has concluded:

"Under the above circumstances, A1 to A3 thought that LW-

1 has become insurmountable hurdle in securing seat in

ensuring MLA elections. These and other causes of political

rivalry made them to determine to liquidate LW-1 and to

achieve that object A1 and A2 invited A3 into their fold who

is a staunch supporter of LW-1 formerly and used to help in

17

all angles. In order to accomplish their desire of getting rid

of LW-1, five years ago LW-25 introduced A4 to A1 and A2 as

A1 and A2 are suffering a lot in collecting debts regarding to

fertilizers dealers. On that relation A1 and A2 contacted A4

of Emmiganur, Kurnool District to implement the plan wit

him kill LW-1. A4 having secured A5 to A12 and having

received huge amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- for the purchase of

car and for separate amount for hiring the goondas from A1

and A2 agreed to implement the plan. On 15.10.2007, A4

purchased a Maroon colour Scorpio Car AP 02 M 4959 from

LW-26 and 27. The said car and the silver colour Bajaj

Boxer Motorcycle No. AP 5 AG 9418 of A2 has been used in

the commission of offence.

A5 having secured A5 to A12 boarded in Raja

Rajeswari Lodge, Emmiganur, Kurnool District of for which

LW-28 Yeluganti Perayya provided accommodation on night

of 31.10.2007 and from their, they came to Rajahmundry on

01.11.2007. On 05.11.2007, A4 got effected some minor

repairs to the Scorpio Car at the mechanic shed of LW-24

Anga Janaki Ram. LW-24 gave receipt in the name of A4 for

the collection of repairing charges. Later, A1 and A2 kept A4

to A12 in their godown at their Poultry Farm at

Komaripalem. LWs-22 and 23 Manda Subba Reddy and

Challa Sreenu on the instructions of A1 and A2 used to

provide food drinks etc., to A4 to A12. It is at that godown,

the accused conspired and designed the plan to assault on

LW-1. A1, A2 provided Bajaj boxer motorcycle No. AP 5 AG

9418, Iron Rods and Chili Powder to A4 to A12. A3 was

entrusted with the responsibility giving information about

the movement of LW-1 to A1 and A2 though the cell phone."

With regard to the conversation over cell phones, the

following materials are available in the chargesheet:

"LW-40 secured the cell phones call register of A1 to A3 from

LW-36 who is Airtel Manager, on 07.11.2007 there are 22

calls between A3 and A1 the calls made just before, during

and after the offence LW-40 also secfured the information

from the Idea Manager and it show that A4 and A5 using cell

phones for the relevant period. Thus it is establishes that

the conversation and communication among A1 to A5

through cell phones to commit the offence of murder of LW-

1.

18

On 14.12.2007 at 6:15 a.m. LW-40 arrested A3 at

Komaripalem at his house in the presence of mediators LWs

32 and 33. A3 made a confession regarding the commission

of offence along with the other accused. In pursuance of the

confession of A3, the Nokia Cell Phone No. 9949131888 was

seized in the presence of mediators."

22) About the conspiracy, after adverting to various

instances the Investigating Officer has observed thus:-

"The fact of the case establishes that A1 and A2 conspired

with the other accused A3 to A12 to commit the offence of

murder of LW-1. LW-40 added Section of Law 120(b). Thus

A1 to A12 hatched a plan to end the life of LW-1 but

attempted the life of LW-1 and caused grievous injuries."

23) The statement of the appellant (L.W.-1) is also pertinent

to note here. After narrating the entire incident, previous

election dispute, enmity etc. the appellant has stated:

".....Keeping all these facts in view, I suspect that Mr.

Sathibabu and Mr. Mukunda Reddy, or the MRO Mr.

Dummula Baburao (because of the grudge that I got the ACP

Trap laid) might have planned and got the attack made on

me with their men having hatched a Plan to kill me. I know

the cell phones of Mr. Sathibabu, Mr. Mukunda Reddy and

Mr. Babi. Cell number of Babi is 9941931888, Cell No. of

Sathibabu is 9866617777, Cell No. of Mukunda Reddy is

9849355777....."

In the same way, Padala Sunita, (L.W.-2) wife of Venkata

Rama Reddy, after narrating all the details like (L.W.-1) has

stated:

19 ".....As my husband has been an obstruction to Kovvuru

Satyanarayan Reddy and Mukunda Reddy they might have

or else, because of the ACB Trap the suspended MRO Mr.

Dummula Baburao might have planned this attack on my

husband in order to kill him or else anybody else for any

reason might have planned this attack on my husband to kill

him. I can identify if I again see some of those persons who

attacked my husband and caused injuries to him....."

24) At this moment, Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior

counsel, by pointing out that even if the above mentioned

materials are acceptable, however, the same does not

constitute "legal evidence" to proceed with the trial and

hence the High Court was justified in quashing the same for

which he relied on a decision of this Court in M/s Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (supra). In that decision, the

factual position highlighted therein goes to show that the

complainant had not come to the court with clean hands.

There was no explanation whatsoever for the inaction

between 1995 to 2001. Considering the factual position

that the complaint was nothing but sheer abuse of process

of law and the High Court has to exercise its power under

Section 482, this Court after finding that the High Court

has failed to exercise such power quashed the proceedings

initiated by the complainant. On going through the factual

20

position, we have no quarrel about the proposition laid

down and ultimate order of this Court. That is not the

position in the case on hand. We have already pointed out

various principles and circumstances under which the High

Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482.

When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code,

the 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 scope of exercise of power under Section 482

and the categories of cases where the High Court may

exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to

prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure

the ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan Lal

(supra). The powers possessed by the 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

21

be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. It would not

be proper for the High Court to analyse the 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. In a proceeding instituted on a

complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the

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

the investigation and evidence led in court which decides

the fate of the accused persons.

22 25) On going through the entire complaint, materials

collected and stated in the form of chargesheet, statement

of witnesses LW-1 and LW-2 and by conjoint reading of all

the above materials, it cannot be presumed that there is no

legal and acceptable evidence in support of prosecution. In

the light of the principles enunciated in various decisions

which we have noted in the earlier paras, we are satisfied

that the High Court has exceeded its power in quashing the

criminal proceedings on the erroneous assumption that the

ingredients of the offence alleged by the prosecution has not

been made out. The High Court has also committed an

error in assuming that with the materials available, the

prosecution cannot end in conviction.

26) For the above reasons and in the light of the materials

which we have discussed, we are unable to sustain the

conclusion arrived at by the High Court. The impugned

order quashing the criminal proceedings against the

Respondent Nos. 1-3, i.e. A1-A3 in S.C. No. 175 of 2010 on

the file of the Ist Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajahmundry, arising out of P.R.C. No. 14 of 2008 on the

23

file of the IInd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Rajahmundry is set aside. The trial Court is directed to

proceed with the case against the respondents in

accordance with law. The criminal appeal is allowed.

..........................................J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

..........................................J.

(H.L. GOKHALE)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 29, 2011.

24