K.Bhaskar Reddy v. The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.389 of 2016 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.20 of 2015 on the file of Station House Officer, Vigilance and APTS Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 135(1)(a) and (b) of Indian Electricity Act 2003.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused and the second respondent is the de facto complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint, on 26.12.2014 at about 2.45 p.m., when the electricity officials inspected the premises of the petitioner, they found that no seal was provided for petitioner's meter box and terminal cover. The officials further noticed that the petitioner bypassed the meter duly inserting blue colour insulated aluminium wire between 1st and 4th terminals of the meter and thereby indulged in theft of energy. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is that the petitioner herein committed the theft of electricity with an ulterior motive to cause financial loss to the electricity department. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to civil disputes, the second respondent foisted a false case against the petitioner. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or not will come to light during the course of investigation only.

It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.

I have carefully perused the material available on record in order to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.KAPOOR v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1], STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL[2], V.Y.JOSE V STATE OF GURAJAT[3] AND TEEJA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[4], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the

petitioner till completion of investigation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Station House Officer, Vigilance & APTS Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/accused in Crime No.20 of 2015 till completion of investigation.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date:20.01.2016 Rns [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604 [3] (2009) 3 SCC 78

[4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)