HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5161 OF 2010 DATED 11th November, 2011. BETWEEN Ch. Kumar @ Gita Vijaya Kumar and ors …….Petitioners and The State, Station House Officer, Dachepalli Police Station, Dachepalli, Guntur District, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5161 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners, who are accused 1,2,3,4 and 10 herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the crime No.113 of 2010 registered on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station,Dashepalli, Guntur District, in so far as they are concerned. The Sub Inspector of Police, Dachepally registered a complaint on 6.6.2010 on coming to know the credible information that accused herein along with some others are transporting illegally the rice meant for Public Distribution System. The material on record revealed that the Sub Inspector of Police after securing the presence of mediators rushed to the spot with his staff and stopped the lorry bearing registration No. ABK 3047 and on check said to have been made by him, found 212 bags of PDS rice were illegally transporting to other District to sell at higher prices for their wrongful gain. Thereafter, in the presence of the mediators the stock was seized and a crime was registered against the petitioners herein along with others and took up investigation. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged crime. He asserted that the petitioners are respected persons in the Dachepally area and the case was registered against them only with a view to harass them under the guise of misuse of their power. Heard. Perused the case file. The material on record would reveal that immediately after the seizure of the alleged stock in the presence of the mediators, the SI of police brought Shaik Johny, the driver of the crime lorry before the mediators and questioned him. Before the mediators, the said Driver inter alia deposed as under: “……My lorry owner name is Peddala Srinivasarao, S/o Subbaiah………. My owner informed after went to Dachepalli on mid day 5.6.2010 that there is loading work of ration rice and wait at Naveen Bar Restaurant. During the course waiting, I and lorry cleaner and Gandham Rajesh, two persons by name Chithirala Kumar (A.1 herein) and Kola Venkat reddy (A.2 herein) came on motor cycle and introduced themselves. Then they introduced as traders in rice and introduced Neelam Murali to us and informed us to come at Brahmanaidu Auditorium, Narayanapuram. We went Brahmanaidu auditorium, at about 12.00 mid night with lorry. The rice traders Kumar and Venkatreddy came along with rice of 40 bags of PDS and loaded fromTata Trolly AP 7Y 7834 to our lorry with assitance of three coolies . Then Kumar and venkatreddy taken our lorry to Mudinapadu village at about 2.00 a.m., the rice of 60 bags belong to Dealer Sudhar Reddy were loaded into our lorry with assistance of coolies there. Kumar and Venkatreddy stopped our lorry at Mutyalamma temple, Mutyalamma road, Dachepalle village, the 112 bags of ration rice belong to Dealer Yedukondalu (A.3) were loaded by coolies in two times with Trolley Auto AP 7Y 7834. The time is at about 6.00 a.m. Kumar and Venkatreddy informed that the load of rice to be sent to Nizamabad through the person Murali who is the clerk of owner of the goods Srinivasreddy.. The we packed patta on lorry , during transport after taking tiffin etc., the police caught…..” Perusal of the material placed on record including the mediators report reveal that allegations made against the petitioners prima facie attract the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code as well as the Essential Commodities Act in view of the specific overt acts and they are allegedly responsible for the illegal transportation of the rice meant for Public Distribution System. While exercising jurisdiction under S. 482 of the Cr.P.C. this Court would not embark upon a roving enquiry to find out as to whether the allegations in question are true or otherwise; or whether on a reasonable appreciation the accusations would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or needless harassment. These aspects can as well be agitated by the petitioners before the trial Court by way of their defence. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the allegations made in the Mediators report attached to the First Information Report, if taken at its face value and if accepted in its entirety, do not even prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioners. Trite state, When a complaint is lodged at the police station and a case is registered, the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance at that stage. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings For the foregoing discussion and keeping in mind the specific allegations levelled against the petitioners it would not be proper for this Court to thwart the investigation at the threshold. Thus, I find that there are no valid or justifiable grounds to exercise the power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the aforesaid crime. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 11th November, 2011. Msnro