LexCHUNDURU SIVA RAM KRISHNA AND ANR. versus PEDDI RAVINDRA BABU AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1129 CHUNDURU SIVA RAM KRISHNA AND ANR. A ·• v PEDDI RAVINDRA BABU AND ANR. Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2009 Etc. MARCH 25, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Scope of - ., Criminal proceeding u/ss. 406, 420 and 424 rlw s. 34 /PC - Against nine accused - Some of the accused (family c members/relatives of prime accused) filing petition for quashing of proceedings - Rejected by High ,Court - On appeal, held: When prosecution is sought to be quashed at initial stage, test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted a/legations in the complaint prima facie establish the offence D '( - On facts, no prima facie case made out against petitioners as no specific role ascribed to them - Proceedings against them quashed - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 406, 420, 424 rlw s. 34. Accused No. 1 was the sole proprietor of a rice mill. E As his business declined,· he owed debts to Banks, financial institutions and to public. He filed an insolvency petition. Several representations were made, making allegations against accused No. 1 and his family members. The representations were endorsed to police for F investigation. Respondents-paddy suppliers also lodged report against accused No. 1 and his family members and relatives (including appellants-accused Nos. 2-3 and 6-8) for offences punishable u/ss. 406 and 420 r/w s. 34 IPC. Police filed charge-sheet u/ss. 406, 420 and 424 r/w s. 34 G ... IPC. Appellants-accused filed petition u/s. 482 Cr.P'.c., seeking quashing of criminal complaint and charge-sheet. The petition was dismissed by High Co.urt. Hence the present appeals. 1129 H 1130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. When at an initial stage a prosecution is sought to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made 8 in the complaint filed, prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special feature that may appear in a particular case while considering whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any C oblique purpose. The tests that are laid down in the case of Bhajan Lal are required to be applied very carefully and minutely when a prayer for quashing is laid before the court. [Para 17) [1142-F-H; 1143-A] Drugs Inspector v. Dr. B.K. Krishna 1981 (2) SCC 454; D Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi 1983 (1) SCC 1; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 (5) SCC 749; S. W Palanikar v. State of Bihar 2002 (1) sec 241 - relied on. E 2.1 In the instant case, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution against the appellants most of the allegations in the charge sheet are mainly directed against accused No. 1. There is no concrete and direct allegation against all these persons ascribing any F definite role to each one of them in the offence alleged. The statements shown as allegations amounting to prima facie evidence against them, are very bald and vague statements on the basis of which no case could be made out. Such allegations do not make out a case of prima facie G evidence. Therefore, the proceedings as against the ap- pellants i.e. accused Nos. 2and 3 and accused Nos. 6 to 8 are quashed. [Paras 20, 21 and 22] [1143-F-G; 1144-B-D] Case Law Reference H 19a1 (2) sec 454 Relied on. Para 12 ~ .. - CHUNDURU SIVA RAM KRISHNA AND ANR V. PEDDI 1131 RAVINDRA BABU AND ANR. 1983 (1) sec 1 Relied on. Para 12 A 1992 Suppl. (1)SCC 335 Relied on. Para 14 - 1998 (5) sec 749 Relied on. Para 15 2002 (1) sec 241 Relied on. Para 16 B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. C 5618 of 2006. WITH " Criminal Appeal No. 550 of 2009 . G. Ramakrishna Prasad, C.K. Sucharita, for the Appellants. Altaf Fatima, D. Bharathi Reddy, for the Respondents. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. Leave granted. D E 2. Both these appeals are being taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order as F these appeals have bee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.