THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5161 of 2008 Date: 11th April, 2011 Between: Padamata Ranga Rao …PETITIONER a n d The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer, Gannavaram P.S., Krishna District, Rep. by Public Prosecutor …RESPONDENT ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this petition which is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is whether there are grounds to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.116 of 2008 of Gannavaram Police Station in Krishna district, against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner-Padamata Ranga Rao who is shown as running a shop called M/s.Tirumala Rice Traders in Gannavaram is shown as the first accused in the said F.I.R. A copy of the said F.I.R. is filed by the petitioner in the paper book filed by him in this petition and it is not in dispute. The F.I.R. reads that it was registered on a mediators report dated 17-05-2008 following the seizure of a Truck/lorry bearing registration No.AHF 3535 near a place called Gannavaram Gandhi Statue Centre on National Highway No.5. It is stated in the said mediators report that on 17-05-2008 in the early hours at the above place the Gannavaram Police intercepted the above lorry when it was found transporting about 100 quintals of rice and the petitioner among others was found in the said lorry. It is further stated in the said mediators report that on interrogation by the Police the petitioner is said to have made a disclosure that he purchased the said 100 quintals of rice from a ration shop dealer by name Remalle Santhosham of Velpur village and he was transporting the said rice to a rice mill called Vinayaka Rice Mill of Pulla village in West Godavari District at the time of the interception of the said lorry. Regarding the source from which the above Santhosham got the aforesaid rice, the petitioner is said to have disclosed that the said Santhosham was entrusted with that rice under a scheme called “Swarna Jayanthi Grameena Rozgari Yochana”. This scheme is stated to be a Government scheme under which rice is distributed as remuneration for the work taken from the coolies. This aspect regarding the source of rice, as will be presently seen, assumes importance. 3. It is seen that after interception of the above lorry the Gannavaram police registered the present Crime No.116 of 2008 and took the petitioner into custody and also seized the rice. It should be noted now that the Police have registered the above case/crime for the offences punishable under Sections 406 I.P.C. and Section 109 I.P.C. i.e., criminal breach of trust and abetment of a criminal offence. 4. The first plea of the petitioner is that the case has been foisted against him. His second plea is that there are no restrictions placed regarding purchase and sale of rice by the Central Government and our State Government has also deleted the restrictions on the purchase and sale of rice and that except the restrictions in A.P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 there are no other restrictions. He further states that the aforesaid control order is not applicable to his case and therefore, the F.I.R. should be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that even assuming the seizure of the lorry and rice are correct, the action of the Police in registering the case for offences under Section 406 I.P.C. and Section 109 I.P.C. is baseless as the said offences are not attracted to the transaction and therefore, the F.I.R. should be quashed on that ground and also on the pleas taken by the petitioner. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand argued that the F.I.R. discloses that the rice in question pertains to the above mentioned “Swarna Jayanthi Grameena Rozgari Yochana” scheme and it is meant only for the poor people covered by the said scheme and is not available for sale in open market and therefore, the ration shop dealer in question who was entrusted with that rice can be said to have committed criminal breach of trust, and others including the petitioner can be said to have abetted that offence. He also argued that the matter is still at the stage of investigation and once investigation is completed all the aspects relating to the case will come out and therefore, the F.I.R. should not be quashed. He also pointed out that an F.I.R. need not be quashed even if inappropriate offences are mentioned and the Police must be given an opportunity to complete the investigation as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. In the light of the above contentions the point is now taken up. 7. The respective contentions of both sides have already been stated supra. It may be noted that the contents of the F.I.R. would categorically show that Police have intercepted the lorry bearing registration No.AHF 3535 and seized the rice weighing about 100 quintals. This rice is said to have been entrusted to a ration shop dealer by name Remalle Santhosham in West Godavari district under the above “Swarna Jayanthi Grameena Rozgari Yochana” scheme. The version of the Police/prosecution is that Police have to still investigate whether this rice was distributed to the above ration shop dealer under the above scheme and if so, whether it is not available for sale in the open market and whether it has been illegally diverted by the ration shop dealer and others including the petitioner and if so, what would be the offences committed by them. It is true that F.I.R. is registered for the offence under Section 406 I.P.C. i.e., criminal breach of trust, which is the main offence. It can be said that if the entrustment of the above rice to the ration shop dealer Remalle Santhosham is true and if the rice was meant only for distribution under the above scheme by him and its diversion into open market is prohibited the act committed by him may attract Section 406 I.P.C. or it may attract other offences under the Essential Commodities Act or under any other law governing distribution of such rice. This can be ascertained only after completion of investigation. 8. Similarly, the role of each of the five accused including the petitioner shown in the F.I.R. for dealing with the said rice and what offences can be said to have been committed by them can also be ascertained only after completion of investigation. It should also be noted here that just because an F.I.R. has been registered it does not follow that Police should necessarily prosecute all accused mentioned therein for one offence or the other. On the other hand, it is always open for the police investigating officer to file a closure report also if his investigation does not disclose any offences. It should also be noted here that it is always open for the petitioner or the other accused to put forward their cases or pleas before the investigating officer to show that their acts do not constitute any offence or the rice in question was not dealt with by them at all and the police officer is bound to consider the said pleas. 9. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. do not disclose any offences against the petitioner. The police have to still investigate the matter and ascertain about the guilt or innocence of the petitioner and this they can do only in the course of investigation. It is not for this Court sitting under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to pronounce one way or the other on the above questions. Hence the contentions of the petitioner for quashing the FIR cannot be accepted. 10. Accordingly, the point is decided in the negative and this petition is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 11th April, 2011 Pn HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5161 of 2​008 11th April, 2011 Pn