Arelli Ravi v. The State of A.P & Anr.

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.8461 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-A.4 seeking to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, arising out of Crime No.13 of 2010 of Subedari Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. Heard. The Prosecution case is that on 15.01.2000 A.1 to A.8, due to land disputes, attacked the deceased Nagpuri Sarangapani with knives and caused multiple injuries to him on his both hands, chest, stomach and face, due to which he died. Further, when L.W1 and one Mallesham tried to interfere accused threatened them and ran away. Basing on the complaint of L.W.1, Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2000 and after due investigation they filed charge sheet in P.R.C.No.105 of 2000, which was split up on two occasions vide S.C.No.215 of 2003 against A.5 and S.C.No.94 of 2003 against A.2 and A.8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-A.4 submitted that S.C.Nos.93 and 215 of 2003 were tried together and the same were ended in acquittal by the IV Additional Sessions Judge vide common judgment dated 05.08.2004 since the eye witnesses not supported prosecution case. In State of Maharashtra v Arun Gulab Gawali[1], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :

………….. and Section 482 Cr.P.C. are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The power of judicial review is discretionary, however, it must be exercised to prevent the miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave errors and to ensure that esteem of administration of justice remains clean and pure. However, there are no limits of power of the Court, but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers.

In the above referred judgment, the Supreme Court also reiterated the following principle laid down in R.P.Kapur v State of Punjab[2] : “Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice.