K KOMARAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application u/sec. 482 Cr P C to quash all the proceedings in S C No. 78/89 on the file of the court oftheAddl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Guntur.

(2.) In this case, with regard to the identity of the vehicle there is a dispute and the same has been questioned by the petitioners stating that the pro^e- cution was not in a position to say whe- ther the vehicle in question is a Dodge Rocket 1975 model or Premier Road Master. But the report of the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department shows that the registration mark ATT 7549 was freshly painted o the front and rear and that the surface of the chasis number under the chain was grinded. This is a disputed question of fact and has to- be decided by evidence and it is not for this court to give a finding on that aspect whether the number of the vehicle has been changed or not or any duplicate numbers have been inscribed and obtained registration of the vehicle. When a competent Sessions Court found that there is a prima facie case and charges were framed against the accused it is neither permissible nor desirable for this court to quash the proceedings by applying the provisions of Sec. 482 Cr P C. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered as long back as in the year 1960 in R P Kapur Vs State of Punjab AIR 1960 S C 866 wherein the jurisdiction of the High Courts to quash criminal proceedings are enunciated. There is no quarrel with the principles laid down in that decision. But this case does not fall within the principles laid down by the Apex Court, to quash the proceedings in the case on hand. Very recently the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. P P. Sharma AIR 1991 S C 1260 elaborately dealt with the aspect of quashing of criminal proceedings by High Courts in exercise of the power u/sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs P P Sharma (2 supra) had also referred to the decision in R P Kapur's case (1 supra) besides a catena of decisions on the subject. The Supreme Ccurt held that in exercising its power u/sec. 482 Cr P C the High Court should exercise greater discipline. The Supreme Court in the second decision (2 supra) obseived that the appreciation of evidence is the function of the criminal courts and the High Court cannot undertake that function u/sec. 482 CrPC. In this case the dispute with regard to the identity of the vehicle is a disputed question of fact and has to be decided on a proper appreciation of evidence to be let in before the court below. As observed by the Supreme Court this court cannot at this stage while exercising its powers u/sec. 482 Cr P C undertake appreciation of evidence and quash the proceedings.

(3.) For the above reasons I see no good reason to quash the proceedings. This application is therefore dismissed.