IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10734 OF 2010 Between:- Balineni Srinivasa Reddy and others …Petitioners A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (Ongole-I Town P.S., Prakasam District) and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.10734 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 in C.C.No.237 of 2009, on the file of the learned II-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Records are perused. 3. On the basis of police proceedings dated 01- 04-2009, a case in Cr.No.145 of 2009 was registered by I- Town Police, Ongole against the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 for the offences under Sections 171(c) & 188 IPC, Section 127 of R.P. Act and Section 32 of the Police Act. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the learned II-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.237 of 2009. 4. According to the prosecution, on 01-04-2009, the Sub-Inspector of Police, I-Town Police Station, Ongole (L.W.5) along with police constables (L.Ws.1 to 3) and Home Guard (LW.4) were on duty preventing the electoral offences in Ongole Town on the eve of the forthcoming elections to the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha and they received information about conducting of an election meeting at Thata Lakshmi Prasad Kalyana Mandapam and reached there at 10-20 p.m., and found the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 conducting the meeting in violation of the conditions of election code of conduct promulgated by the Election Commissioner and the orders under Section 30 of Police Act issued by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole. The Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.5) arrested A-1 to A-14 and brought them to police station and registered a case in Cr.No.145 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 171(c) & 188 IPC, Section 127 of the R.P.Act and Section 32 of the Police Act. 5. The petitioners seek quashing of further proceedings in C.C.No.237 of 2009 on the ground that at that time the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 were only taking part in dinner in the kalyana mandapam and they were not conducting any election meeting. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 would submit that the ingredients of the alleged offences do not attract the provisions of law under which the charge sheet is filed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the plea of the accused that they were only taking dinner at that time in the kalyana mandapam and were not conducting any election meeting, is a matter to be decided on evidence, during the course of trial, but not at this stage. 8. The specific case of the prosecution is that on 01-04-2009 at 10-20 p.m., the petitioners were conducting election meeting in the kalyana mandapam premises in violation of the code of conduct promulgated by the Election Commission which inter alia stipulates that no election meeting shall be conducted beyond 10-00 p.m. In the police proceedings, based on which the case is registered, it is recorded that information was received at 10-10 p.m., about the election meeting going on in the kalyana mandapam conducted by the first petitioner/ A-1 along with his followers A-2 to A-14 and the police party reached the place at 10-20 p.m., and found that the meeting was still going on and when questioned, the organizers did not give any proper reply and did not also produce any permission from the authorities concerned for conducting the meeting or for use of mike. It is further alleged that the election meeting conducted by the petitioners/accused at that time using the mike without permission was not only in violation of the code of conduct issued by the Election Commission but also causing nuisance and disturbance to the neighbouring residents. The petitioners/A-1 to A-14 are not disputing their presence at that place and hour, but according to them they were only having dinner at that time and were not addressing any election meeting. 9. The question as to whether or not the petitioners were addressing an election meeting, as alleged by the prosecution or they were only taking dinner, as pleaded by the petitioners, is a matter to be decided on appreciation of evidence that may be adduced at the time of trial. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no independent witness is cited in the charge sheet to prove the prosecution case and the witnesses cited are all police personnel, whose evidence would only be interested. The question as to whether or not the evidence that may be adduced by the prosecution would be sufficient or reliable or worthy of acceptance, are all matters to be considered by the trial Court after recording of evidence and by appreciating the same. The said aspects pertaining to the quality of evidence or probative value thereof, cannot be gone into at this stage and in the present proceedings. 11. It is an established principle of law that the extraordinary and discretionary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C have to be exercised with care, caution and circumspection and such inherent power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution, as held in a catena of decisions by the Apex Court and also this Court. The allegations made in the complaint, which in the present case, is a police proceeding, prima facie discloses commission of the offences alleged. The question as to whether or not the ingredients of the alleged offences are established and whether or not the culpability of the petitioners/accused is established, are matters to be decided during the course of trial, based on the evidence that may be let in. The fact that no unofficial witness nor any of the members who attended the meeting is cited as a witness in the charge sheet is no ground to quash further proceedings. It is always open to the prosecution to seek permission of the Court to cite additional witnesses and examine them if need be. Simply because the cited witnesses are police personnel, it cannot be presumed at this stage that their testimony would be interested. 12. It is well settled that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court would not embark upon to consider as to whether the evidence is reliable or not. The continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.237 of 2009 cannot be considered to be an abuse of process of Court so as to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 13. In the circumstances, it is held that there absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-14 in C.C.No.237 of 2009, on the file of the Learned II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. 14. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2010 Lrkm.