Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cr.No.285 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent police station i.e., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultan Bazar Police Station, Hyderabad and Criminal Petition No.869 of 2010 is filed to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.141 of 2009 on the file of the first respondent Police Station, i.e., Mogalpura Police Station, Hyderabad wherein the petitioner herein alleged to have committed an offence under Section 7 of Cinematography Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner herein is a producer of the film and he was charged with the allegation that he committed an offence under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act clearly states that no distributor, exhibitor or owner or employee of a Cinema House shall be liable for punishment for contravention of any of the conditions on endorsement of caution on a film certified as “U/A” under this part.
He further argued that if the allegations that are made in the complaint are taken as true, the same do not constitute an offence punishable under the provisions of the said Act. He further argued that the present criminal petitions are filed only to harass the petitioner. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. During the course of arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor filed an affidavit of the Sub-Inspector of Sultan Bazar Police Station, before whom, the F.I.R. was registered, wherein it is stated that the investigation is still pending. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the Investigating Agency is not able to get information whether the alleged offence committed by the petitioner falls under the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act. It is clear from paragraph No.5 of the affidavit of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultan Bazar Police Station that whether the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act will attract or not will be elicited only after investigation by the police.
Operative part
It is seen from the record that the F.I.R. was registered by the police, Sultan Bazar Police Station against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Act, basing on the complaint lodged by a third party. Unless the police satisfies about the report submitted by the third party, no crime is to be registered, but in the present case, the crime was registered under Section 7 of the Act. Even as on this day, the Investigating Officer is not able to come to a conclusion whether Section 7 of the said Act will attract or not to the present circumstances of the case. Hence, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and this is a clear case where the police without applying their mind, simply registered the crime under Section 7 of the Act, without any positive understanding on the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in this crime is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Dt.30.08.2012 Tjs ________________ K.S.APPA RAO J.,
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed, quashing the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cinematography Act, 1952 — s. 7; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.