THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Petition No. 4739 of 2008 Order: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/A6 to quash the proceedings in P.R.C. No. 34 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapuram, West Godavari District. The second respondent herein is the complainant. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent is the brother of the deceased Kanaka Raju. One Usha Rani is the wife of the deceased Kanaka Raju. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Kanaka Raju had to undergo eye operation and for that purpose he was in need of money. He approached A1, namely Raghu and A1 advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased. It appears that unfortunately the operation failed and the deceased Kanaka Raju could not do any work and he was not in a position to repay the loan amount. The specific allegation against the accused including the petitioner is that they all were going to the house of the deceased and were threatening him to pay the loan amount. It is also alleged that the wife of the deceased Usha Rani was not allowed to come out of the house and she was wrongfully confined in the house. Their pattadar passbooks and other documents were snatched by the accused. In view of this torture, the deceased Kanaka Raju and his wife Usha Rani consumed poison in the early morning of 24.03.2007. Unfortunately Kanaka Raju died. On the report given by the brother of Kanaka Raju, the police registered a case in Crime No.48 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C and Sections 448, 306, 384 and 506(2) read with 34 IPC. Challenging the said FIR, this petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is A6 in the said case and no specific allegations have been made against him. His further submission is that the dying declaration of Usha Rani, the wife of the deceased, was recorded on 24.03.2007 i.e., on the date of incident itself and in the said statement she did not make any allegations against any one person and that she had categorically stated that nobody harassed them and that no one is responsible for their consuming poison. His main submission is that in view of categorical statement of the wife of the deceased the proceedings should be quashed. It is also his submission that as far as the petitioner is concerned only omnibus allegations have been made and no specific allegation has been made against him. The only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The settled legal position is that the High Court while exercising inherent powers cannot appreciate the evidence. What is to be seen is whether the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet disclose any offence or not. If it appears that the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, though accepted on their face value, do not constitute an offence and if the ingredients of the offence have not been made out, then only this Court can quash the proceedings. Where on the face of it, it appears that continuation of the proceedings will result in abuse of process of the Court or result in manifest injustice to the parties, then only inherent powers can be exercised. Of course, in this case there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dying declaration of the wife of the deceased itself shows that there was no harassment. What is the evidentiary value of the dying declaration and how it has to be appreciated are the subject matters of the trial Court. It is also not clear under what circumstances the wife of the deceased had given such statement before the Magistrate. Therefore, no opinion can be expressed at this stage on the dying declaration of Usha Rani. From a reading of the complaint, it cannot be said that the allegations made therein do not disclose the alleged offences. As far as the role alleged to have been played by the petitioner herein is concerned, his name has been mentioned in the FIR and also in the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses as the person who accompanied the other persons to the house of the deceased and who harassed the deceased and his wife. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that there are no grounds to allow the Criminal Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the main case without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this petition. At this stage, it is represented that the petitioner is a Government employee and it may be difficult for him to appear before the trial Court regularly. Therefore, the trial Court may not insist the presence of the petitioner herein on each date of posting of the case, but however, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court for answering the charges, if any framed against him and for answering the questions to be put under Section 313 Cr.P.C and as and when directed by the trial Court. _______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 29.04.2010 Nsr