9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Quashing of FIR under Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Prohibition Act u/s 482 of CrPC by High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Summary: 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed FIRs alleging offences under Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and Prohibition Act, related to transporting or storing black jaggery/molasses for manufacturing illicit liquor or abetting such offence. The accused moved u/s 482 of CrPC for quashing, which was accepted by the High Court due to lack of material showing intent for manufacturing illicit liquor. 2. State of Andhra Pradesh contended that High Court's approach was erroneous as there was material indicating the commission of a crime. The exercise of power u/s 482 of CrPC was deemed indefensible. 3. The power u/s 482 of CrPC is an exception and not the rule, meant to prevent abuse of court process and secure justice. The High Court's decision to quash the FIR was considered unjustified. 4. No appearance on behalf of the respondents despite notice. 5. The inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of CrPC is wide but must be exercised sparingly, with caution, and only when justified by specific tests laid down in the Section. The Court does not function as an appellate or revisional authority while exercising this power. 6. Referring to R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, categories were outlined where inherent power can be exercised, including cases where allegations do not constitute the offence alleged or where evidence fails to prove the charge. 7. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision when facts are incomplete. The power to quash proceedings is to be used only when the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. 8. The High Court's power u/s 482 of CrPC is wide but must not stifle legitimate prosecutions. The decision to quash proceedings should be based on sound principles and not on incomplete facts. 9. In these cases, statements of witnesses or seizure of materials for manufacturing illicit liquor were relevant. The determination of culpability is a matter for trial, and interference with the FIR should be in exceptional circumstances. 10. The High Court was not justified in quashing the FIR as the materials indicated the commission of an offence, which should be decided at trial. 11. The action of the High Court in quashing the FIR was set aside based on legal principles. 12. The State was directed to conduct early investigation and submit a report without delay, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits. 13. All appeals were allowed based on the above reasons.
|
