SOMISETTI SUBBARAYALU SETTI Vs. V RANGIAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioners seek to have the charges framed against them in C.C.No. 555 of 1957 by the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Badvel, quashed. A.1 is the son-in-law of A-2 who is the mother of A-3. The charge framed is that A-1 and A-2 on or about the 3Oth day of September, 1954, at Proddutur committed a theft in a building and that A-3 at Proddutur abetted A-1 and A-2 in the commission of the said offence of theft which was committed as a consequence of his abetment. A-1 and A-2 were charged on 27th July, 1957, under section 380, Indian Penal Code, while A-3 was charged of the abetment of that offence under section 109 read with section 380, Indian Penal Code. In Sriram and three others v. State of Hyderabad, a Bench of the erstwhile Hyderabad High Court, of which I was a party, held that interference in revision by the High Court in pending criminal proceedings should be rare unless the impropriety is a flagrant one and immediate action is necessary to prevent injustice. It is unusual for the High Court to interfere in revision in cases pending in the Subordinate Courts. An interference to quash proceedings should only take place in two contingencies, (1) if the prosecution allegations, even when accepted as true, do not establish any offence against the accused; and (2) where an offence is established if the allegations are believed, but there is no evidence at all to support the allegations. The invocation of re- visional powers during the pendency of a case in the trial Court cannot be made a substitute for the exercise of the right of appeal, which an aggrieved party always has after the termination of the proceedings. The High Court is, therefore, reluctant to interfere in a case which has not yet been completed in the trial Court and it would do so only in exceptional cases such as, where a person is being harassed by an illegal prosecution or where there is some manifest and patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings calling for prompt redress or where the evidence on record for the prosecution clearly does not justify a charge of any offence or where the trial is on the face of it an abuse of the process of the Court. In that case one of the tests accepted as justifying the interference is that on a bare statement of the case without any elaborate arguments it should be sufficient to convince the High Court that it is a fit case for interference at the intermediate stage. But where there is evidence constituting the offence with which the accused is charged, the High Court will not interfere in the lower Court's proceedings, nor will it go into the question of credibility of that evidence. As long as there is prima facie evidence to sustain the charge, no interference with the trial is called for. These above principles are clearly deducible from the case law cited therein and it would be futile to re-examine them.

(2.) A narration of the story of the prosecution and a cursory reference to the evidence led in support of the charge may now be useful in determining whether this is a case in which the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings at this stage. One V. Rangiah Chetty, the father of Radhakrishnayya Chetty filed a complaint on 19th December, 1956, before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Proddutur, who ordered investigation by the police under section 156 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. The police after investigation filed a charge-sheet under section 380 or 411, Indian Penal Code, against A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5. The last two are related to one another as brothers-in-law. A charge-sheet was filed under section 380 read with section 109 against A-3. The charge-sheet alleges that one Mitta Thayaramma residing at Proddutur adopted the complainant Rangayya Chetty. She died in 1918 leaving considerable moveable and immoveable properties. As. the said Rangayya Ghetty was a minor at the time of her death, the Official Trustee of Madras was appointed as property guardian in pursuance of the proceedings in the, High Court. In 1952 the properties were handed over to Rangayya Chetty and his sons under the orders of the High Court. The house bearing Door No. 175, Bazar Street, Proddutur, was the residential house of Thayaramma and this house was leased by the Official Trustee, to one Jutur Nagamaiah, the father of A-3, and the husband of A-2, that six iron-safes locked and sealed in a locked room, and two big mirrors, one centre big cluster, 8 pendent small globes; two marble benches, were left in the house as they were unwieldy and could not be removed to Madras by the Official Trustee ; that in 1952 the OfTicial Trustee handed over the possession to one Rangayya Chetty and his sons ; that the said Nagamayya died in 1954 and that A-2 continued to remain in the same house. It was further alleged that in middle of September 1954, A-2 had the furniture named above removed to the house of A-1 without the consent of the owners at the instance of A-3; that A-2 had the locks of the room in which the iron- safes were left broken open and with the help of A-1 removed them to A-1's house at the instance of A-3 who abetted the same ; that an year thereafter A-1 sold two of the iron-safes to one Urutur Veerayya Chetty who in his turn sold them to Ghouse Mohiddin and China Venkata Subbiah : that on search by the police the two iron-safes were recovered on 23th December, 1956, one from the house of Ghouse Mohiddin and the other from China Venkata Subbiah ; that the other iron-safes were kept deposited in the house of Thammadru Subbamma and one of them was recovered in good condition from her house on 23rd December, 1956 and one more was recovered in a broken condition from the shop of Munireddi. It is stated that a door-frame of the safe was recovered from the house of A-5 on 23rd December, 1956. Further details of recoveries were given, namely, certain silverware belonging to Rangayya Chetty were said to have been recovered from the safe recovered on 21st December, 1956 from A-5 who produced them before the S.I. of Police and two big mirrors were alleged to have been recovered on the same day from the house of A-1 and identified by the complainant. It is necessary at this stage to examine the case of the complainant put forward by him before the complaint and on the date of the complaint.

(3.) In paragraph 5 of the complaint it is alleged there were 7 locked and sealed iron-safes kept in the house, 8 pendent small globes, 2 marble tables and one marble bench, that these articles were left over in the house as they were unwieldy to be removed by the Official Trustee being too heavy ; that in 1952 the Official Trustee handed over possession of the building in which late Jutur Nagamayya with his wife and son were living, to the sons of the complainant; that these seven iron- safes referred to above could not be removed by the complainant and his sons to Madras because they were too heavy and difficult for transport and since they were already there during the management of the Official Trustee, the complainant and his son did not think it necessary to remove them till an appropriate time came ; that late Jutur Nagamayya father of A-3 had consented to allow them to remain there ; that after the death of Nagamayya, A-3 and A-2 were allowed to continue in the house at their request for sometime and ultimately vacated the house in 1954. It is further alleged that A-3 was not residing at Proddutur and so he instructed his mother A-2 and his brother in law A-1 to remove the above articles while they were vacating the house and as a consequence A-1 and A-2 removed them without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, whereupon the complainant caused a notice to be issued to A-3 for the return of the articles removed and that though A-1 was promising to settle the matter, it was still under negotiation. The notice to which complainant refers may now be examined. A notice issued by one Kalahasti Sarma, Advocate, Madras, dated 11th October, 1954 under instructions from the complainant viz., Radhakrishnayya Chetty and four others, to A-3 is to the following effect. It says :-