10. The present case was lodged by Respondent No.2 based on the information given by the-then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool vide reference in Rc.No.B/1202/2016, dated 17.11.2016, against the accused, who are the Fair Price Shop Dealers, regarding the tampering of ePOS machines, unauthorized drawl of scheduled commodities and causing loss of Rs.5,33,921/- to the Government. Perusal of the record shows that the Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted his report stating that nothing could be elicited nor any complaint was received from the cardholders against the petitioners, as such there is no positive evidence against the petitioners to take necessary action. 11. In view of the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, no case can be made out against the petitioners. Further, in view of the guideline No.1 in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the petitioners, as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. This Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.578 of 2020

Between:

1. Y. Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Sri Y.Yellappa Hindu, aged 34years,

Occ.F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382109, R/o.H.No.81-2)4-2-S

Lavanyanagar, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Smt.M.Pushpavathamma, W/o.Late Sri M.Krishna Murthy Hindu, aged

40 years, OccF.P. Shop Dealer of Shop. No.1382111 R/o.H.No.51-589,

SBI ColoKy Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

3. P.Ahamed, S/o.Sri P.Muhammed Aged 54 years, OccF.P.Shop Dealer of

Shop No.1382128, H.No.8/4/0/413 Ayyappaswami Nagar, Kurnool Town

Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh

4. .Smt.A.Prameelamma, W/o.Sri A. Ramachandra Reddy Hindu, aged 50

years Occ. F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382131 Plot No.270,

W.S.Colony / Kurnool, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

5. A.Padma Priya, W/o.Sri A.Murali Mohan Reddy Hindu, aged 32 years,

Occ.F.P Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382140, R/o.Flat NO.22, Raghunath

Complex, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh

6. M.Munamma, W/o.Sri M.Kumar Hindu, aged 47 years, Oc.F.P.Shop

Dealer of Shop No.1382141, R/o.H.No.84/83 Shareen Nagar, Kurnool

Town, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

7. V.R.Krishnavenamma, S/o.Shaik Subhan Basha Aged 45 years,

OccF.P.Shop Deale/of Shop No.1382154, R/o.HJNo.77/72-41

Chintalamuni Nagar, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Petitioners

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court,

Amaravathi Guntur District

2. The Assistant Supply, Officer Civil Supply Office, Kurnool, Kurnool

District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents

1

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.578 of 2020

ORDER:

 The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731

has been filed, by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.,2, 4, 5,

6, 8, 9 and 10, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.

No.2609 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kurnool, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 409

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602

and Sections 66 and 66-B of

Information Technology Act,2000.

3

2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are;

a. The Government of Andhra Pradesh introduced the ePOS machines in

May, 2015 to distribute essential commodities to the concerned Districts

and for supplying the same to the Fair Price Shop Dealers to avoid

misappropriation in distribution to the card holders, by obtaining thumb

impressions. The said ePOS machines were under the supervision of NIC,

Hyderabad and Aadhaar Server at Bengaluru. A F.P.Shop dealer must

obtain the thumb impression of the card holder in the said ePOS machine

and after obtaining the approval signals, the dealer should distribute the

commodities to the card holders.

b. While so, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool through is letter in

Rc.No.B/102/2016, dated 17.11.2016 had informed regarding tampering of

1 in short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 in short, ‘I.P.C.’

3 in short, ‘I.T.Act.’

2024:APHC:6968

2

ePOS by F.P.Shop Dealers and un-authenticated drawing of scheduled

commodities pertaining to 15411 ration cards, that took place in October,

2016. The R.D.O further informed that the Joint Collector, Kurnool in his

letter vide Rc.C56/325/2016 dated 16.11.2016 informed the Deputy (IT-I),

O/o.Commissioner of Civil Supplies, A.P., Vijayawada, and had furnished a

list of F.P.Shop Dealers who drew the commodities unauthorizedly in

October, 2016 and caused loss of Rs.5,33,921/- to the Government.

c. After investigation, the Investigating Officer arrested Accused No.3

on 30.11.2016 and sent him for judicial custody. On the Writ Petitions filed

by Accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 11, this Court directed the Police to conduct

investigation without arresting them. Accused Nos.12 and 13 absconded.

d. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed before the

Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the above said

offence and the same was numbered as C.C.No.2609 of 2018. This C.C is

sought to be quashed by petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10,

vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Ms.E.Santha Sree, learned counsel for Petitioners, and

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

the State/Respondent No.1. None represented for Respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners have been working as Fair Price Shop Dealers since 20 years

without any remark and to the satisfaction of the cardholders and the

2024:APHC:6968

3

Officers concerned and that the present case has been case foisted against

the petitioners, without considering the explanation submitted by the

petitioners and the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Hence, prayed

to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case

against petitioners. She would submit that the allegations made against

the petitioners in the complaint would squarely attract the offences

alleged against the petitioners and therefore, the criminal proceedings

should not be quashed against petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the

petition.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on

perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination

that arises in this case is as follows:

Whether the case against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 4,

5, 6, 8, 9 and 10 in C.C.No.2609 of 2018 on the file of the

Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool is liable

to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages

that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to

2024:APHC:6968

4

make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the

Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise

(iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482

jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It

must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on

the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for

compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which

are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision

must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to

discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4

is considered as

the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103,

the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant

provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law

enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise

of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers

under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the

process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it

may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and

sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to

give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power

should be exercised.

(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.

4 AIR 1992 SC 604

2024:APHC:6968

5

(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 uncontroverted 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.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of

quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and

with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the

court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the

reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR

or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not

confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim

or caprice.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhavrao

Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre5

held as follows;

“The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial

5 (1988) 1 SCC 692

2024:APHC:6968

6

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 are 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.”

10. The present case was lodged by Respondent No.2 based on the

information given by the-then Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool vide

reference in Rc.No.B/1202/2016, dated 17.11.2016, against the accused,

who are the Fair Price Shop Dealers, regarding the tampering of ePOS

machines, unauthorized drawl of scheduled commodities and causing loss

of Rs.5,33,921/- to the Government. Perusal of the record shows that the

Revenue Divisional Officer, submitted his report stating that nothing could

be elicited nor any complaint was received from the cardholders against

the petitioners, as such there is no positive evidence against the

petitioners to take necessary action.

11. In view of the finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer, no case can

be made out against the petitioners. Further, in view of the guideline No.1

in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), the allegations made in the complaint do not

disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the

petitioners, as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. This Court

finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2024:APHC:6968

7

12. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against

petitioners/Accused Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, in C.C.No.2609 of 2018 on

the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool registered

for the offence punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC and Sections 66

and 66-B of Information Technology Act, are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________

 JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6968

8

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.578 of 2020

Dt.12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6968

9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.578 of 2020

Between:

1. Y. Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Sri Y.Yellappa Hindu, aged 34years,

Occ.F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382109, R/o.H.No.81-2)4-2-S

Lavanyanagar, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Smt.M.Pushpavathamma, W/o.Late Sri M.Krishna Murthy Hindu, aged

40 years, OccF.P. Shop Dealer of Shop. No.1382111 R/o.H.No.51-589,

SBI ColoKy Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

3. P.Ahamed, S/o.Sri P.Muhammed Aged 54 years, OccF.P.Shop Dealer of

Shop No.1382128, H.No.8/4/0/413 Ayyappaswami Nagar, Kurnool Town

Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh

4. .Smt.A.Prameelamma, W/o.Sri A. Ramachandra Reddy Hindu, aged 50

years Occ. F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382131 Plot No.270,

W.S.Colony / Kurnool, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

5. A.Padma Priya, W/o.Sri A.Murali Mohan Reddy Hindu, aged 32 years,

Occ.F.P Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382140, R/o.Flat NO.22, Raghunath

Complex, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh

6. M.Munamma, W/o.Sri M.Kumar Hindu, aged 47 years, Oc.F.P.Shop

Dealer of Shop No.1382141, R/o.H.No.84/83 Shareen Nagar, Kurnool

Town, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

7. V.R.Krishnavenamma, S/o.Shaik Subhan Basha Aged 45 years,

OccF.P.Shop Deale/of Shop No.1382154, R/o.HJNo.77/72-41

Chintalamuni Nagar, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Petitioners

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court,

Amaravathi Guntur District

2. The Assistant Supply, Officer Civil Supply Office, Kurnool, Kurnool

District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.01.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

____________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

2024:APHC:6968

10

* THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.578 of 2020

% 12.01.2024

Between:

1. Y. Chandra Sekhar, S/o.Sri Y.Yellappa Hindu, aged 34years,

Occ.F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382109, R/o.H.No.81-2)4-2-S

Lavanyanagar, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

2. Smt.M.Pushpavathamma, W/o.Late Sri M.Krishna Murthy Hindu, aged

40 years, OccF.P. Shop Dealer of Shop. No.1382111 R/o.H.No.51-589,

SBI ColoKy Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

3. P.Ahamed, S/o.Sri P.Muhammed Aged 54 years, Occ:F.P.Shop Dealer of

Shop No.1382128, H.No.8/4/0/413 Ayyappaswami Nagar, Kurnool Town

Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh

4. .Smt.A.Prameelamma, W/o.Sri A. Ramachandra Reddy Hindu, aged 50

years Occ. F.P.Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382131 Plot No.270,

W.S.Colony / Kurnool, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

5. A.Padma Priya, W/o.Sri A.Murali Mohan Reddy Hindu, aged 32 years,

Occ.F.P Shop Dealer of Shop No.1382140, R/o.Flat NO.22, Raghunath

Complex, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh

6. M.Munamma, W/o.Sri M.Kumar Hindu, aged 47 years, Oc.F.P.Shop

Dealer of Shop No.1382141, R/o.H.No.84/83 Shareen Nagar, Kurnool

Town, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

7. V.R.Krishnavenamma, S/o.Shaik Subhan Basha Aged 45 years,

OccF.P.Shop Deale/of Shop No.1382154, R/o.HJNo.77/72-41

Chintalamuni Nagar, Kurnool Town Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

...Petitioners

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court,

Amaravathi Guntur District.

2. The Assistant Supply, Officer Civil Supply Office, Kurnool, Kurnool

District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Ms.E.Santha Sree

^ Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor for R.1

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1992 SC 604

2. (1988) 1 SCC 692

This Court made the following:

2024:APHC:6968