1. Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri G.V.L.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
2. This criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking to quash the Charge Sheet in S.C.No.88 of 2025 in Crime No.379 of 2023 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking The Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women at Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
3. The case against the petitioner, as per the charge sheet, is for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 395, 411 and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 (de facto complainant).
Factual Matrix
4. The case of the prosecution, as borne out from the material placed on record, is that on 05.04.2023, at about 5:00 A.M., two unknown persons (accused Nos.3 and 4) allegedly trespassed into the residential house of the de facto complainant (respondent No.2 herein), situated at Zahed Nagar, Uppal. It is alleged that the said persons criminally intimidated the de facto complainant and her two daughters, restrained and tied the complainant, assaulted her, and thereafter committed theft of gold ornaments, cash, and other valuables worth approximately Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) from the house. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, the police registered Crime No.379 of 2023 of Uppal Police Station, initially for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC, against the unknown persons.
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against thirteen (13) accused persons, in which the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.11. According to the prosecution, Accused No.9, namely Dharmireddi Prasad, who is the brother of the petitioner, allegedly handed over an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner from the stolen amount. The prosecution further alleges that the petitioner knowingly received the said amount and thereby participated in the concealment of the proceeds of the offence. The case of the prosecution, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, substantially rests upon the alleged confession statement of Accused No.9 recorded by the police during investigation and the subsequent recovery of an iPhone and cash of Rs.5,00,000/-, at the instance of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 27.04.2023, and thereafter came to be charge-sheeted along with the other accused for the offences alleged against them.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced the following submissions:
i. That, even if the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation are accepted in their entirety, the same do not disclose the commission of any offence by the petitioner under Sections 120(B), 395, 411, or 201 of the IPC. It was contended that the petitioner is a young software professional, having no criminal antecedents and has been falsely implicated in the present crime without there being any legally admissible material connecting him with the alleged offences.
ii. That no overt act whatsoever has been attributed to the petitioner in relation to the commission of the alleged dacoity. Neither the FIR nor the charge sheet alleges that the petitioner was present at the scene of occurrence, entered the house of the de facto complainant, participated in the commission of the dacoity, or assaulted any of the victims. According to the prosecution, the alleged role attributed to the petitioner is confined only to the subsequent receipt of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- allegedly handed over by accused No.9.
iii. That the entire case against the petitioner is founded upon the alleged confessional statement of accused No.9 recorded by the police during the course of investigation. Such a confession, being one made before a police officer, is rendered inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
iv. That the alleged recovery of cash and iPhone from the petitioner, purportedly effected pursuant to his disclosure statement before the police, does not constitute incriminating evidence linking him with the commission of the alleged dacoity. It was contended that the alleged disclosure statement is itself inadmissible to a large extent and that mere recovery of cash, in the absence of any independent evidence establishing that it formed part of the stolen property or that the petitioner had knowledge of its stolen character, is wholly insufficient to attract the offences punishable under Sections 395 or 411 IPC.
v. That there is no material on record to establish any consensus between the petitioner and the other accused so as to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. It was argued that the mere receipt of money from his own brother (accused No.9), without any proof demonstrating that the petitioner was aware that the amount constituted the proceeds of the alleged dacoity, cannot sustain a charge either under Section 120-B IPC or under Section 411 IPC. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the essential ingredient of mens rea, namely guilty intent, is conspicuously absent in the present case.
vi. That the statements of the eyewitnesses (LWs.1 to 3), reveal that their entire narration concerns only to the acts allegedly committed by two unknown persons who entered the house of the de facto complainant. None of the said witnesses has either referred to the presence of the petitioner at the scene of offence or attributed any role whatsoever to him in the commission of the alleged offence. The name of the petitioner surfaced only at a subsequent stage during the course of investigation.
vii. That, in support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana (2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184); Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh ((2022) 9 SCC 676), and Hiralal Babulal Soni v. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 437), and contended that the offence of criminal conspiracy must be established by cogent material evidencing a meeting of minds; that an offence under Section 411 IPC, necessarily requires proof of conscious knowledge that the property was stolen; and that mere possession or recovery, in the absence of such foundational evidence, is insufficient to sustain criminal liability.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents
7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State has advanced the following submissions:
i. That the present Criminal Petition is premature inasmuch as the case is presently at the stage of framing of charges. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the material placed on record discloses the existence of a prima facie case against the accused and is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation or evaluation of the evidence.
ii. That the charge sheet and the material collected during the course of investigation disclose the existence of a larger criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of dacoity and reveal that the accused persons were members of an organized criminal syndicate. It was submitted that the recovery of cash of Rs.5,00,000/- and an iPhone at the instance of the petitioner constitutes incriminating evidence linking the petitioner with the proceeds of the crime and, therefore, prima facie establishes his involvement in the offences alleged.
iii. That the statements of the co-accused are not sought to be relied upon as substantive evidence for securing the conviction of the petitioner at this stage. The said statements are relied upon only to demonstrate the chain of circumstances emerging during the course of investigation, which prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal conspiracy as well as in the receipt and disposal of the stolen property.
iv. That there exists a strong suspicion that the petitioner had knowingly received the stolen property from his brother (accused No.9). It was contended that the petitioner's failure to furnish any plausible explanation for his possession of such a substantial amount of cash constitutes a valid circumstance warranting his prosecution. It was further submitted that the presumption contemplated under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is attracted to the facts of the present case and can be invoked against the petitioner.
8. That the legal position governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), is well settled, inasmuch as the High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, ought not to conduct a mini-trial or undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence at the stage of framing of charges.
9. I have taken note of the respective submissions urged and the material placed on record.
Consideration by this Court
10. Before adverting to the issues, it is relevant to note that the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings are well settled. At the stage of framing of charge, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence or conduct a mini-trial. Nevertheless, the Court is duty-bound to examine whether the allegations in the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation, if accepted at their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the commission of any offence, or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court, the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be exercised.
11. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the FIR was lodged on the very date of the incident against unknown persons. A perusal of the statements of LWs-1 to 3, reveal that all the three eyewitnesses consistently speak only about the presence of two intruders inside the house. Neither the petitioner figures in any of the statements nor any role is attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence. Further, none of the eyewitnesses has identified the petitioner or even referred to his presence at the scene of occurrence. Petitioner’s implication has emerged only during the course of investigation and not from the version of the victims themselves. This omission assumes considerable significance while examining whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner.
12. It is to be noted that in order to attract the offence punishable under Section 395 IPC, the prosecution must prima facie establish that the accused conjointly participated in the commission of robbery constituting dacoity. The charge sheet does not attribute to the petitioner any overt act indicating his presence at the scene of offence or his participation in the acts of house trespass, assault or robbery. The only allegation against him is that he allegedly received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from A-9 after the occurrence. Even if such allegation is accepted at its face value, it does not prima facie satisfy the essential ingredients constituting the offence of dacoity under Section 395 IPC.
13. It is trite that the offence of criminal conspiracy necessarily requires material indicating an agreement or meeting of minds amongst the conspirators to commit an unlawful act. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parveen @ Sonu (supra 1), a few isolated circumstances or the confessional statements of co-accused, in the absence of acceptable independent corroborative material, cannot constitute sufficient evidence of conspiracy. The relevant para of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
12. It is fairly well settled, to prove the charge of conspiracy, within the ambit of Section 120-B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence at all, but at the same time, in absence of any evidence to show meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act, it is not safe to hold a person guilty for offences under Section 120-B of IPC. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy. Even the alleged confessional statements of the co-accused, in absence of other acceptable corroborative evidence, is not safe to convict the accused. In the case of Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana1, this Court has considered the conviction based only on confessional statement and recovery of vehicle used in the crime….
14. Significantly, the charge sheet does not disclose any material suggesting that the petitioner was party to any prior agreement or shared a common intention with the principal accused for committing the alleged dacoity. Even according to the prosecution, the petitioner’s alleged role is confined to the receipt of money after the occurrence, which, even if accepted, does not prima facie establish the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.
15. It is apposite to note that a perusal of the charge sheet discloses that the implication of the petitioner is founded substantially upon the statements allegedly made by the co-accused during police interrogation. The investigation traces the petitioner's alleged involvement through successive disclosure statements of various accused persons, culminating in the allegation that A-9 handed over Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act expressly renders confessions made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence. Further, it is a settled principle that the confessional statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused and cannot, in the absence of independent corroborative material, constitute the sole basis for prosecuting such accused.
16. It is to be noted that the offence under Section 411 IPC requires not merely the receipt or possession of stolen property, but also knowledge or reason to believe that such property was stolen. In respect of the said allegation against the petitioner, the knowledge that he received Rs.5,00,000/- from A-9 being aware that the amount is a proceed of crime cannot be proved, unless material was collected during investigation to prima facie indicate that the petitioner knew, or had reason to believe that the amount allegedly received represented the proceeds of the dacoity. Apparently, the prosecution is unable to demonstrate any such material. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar (supra 2), the element of knowledge is an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 411 IPC. Therefore, the foundational ingredients of Section 411 IPC are not prima facie satisfied insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
17. Section 201 IPC contemplates an act of causing disappearance of evidence or furnishing false information with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. The charge sheet does not contain any allegation or material indicating that the petitioner caused the disappearance of any evidence relating to the alleged dacoity or furnished false information to shield any of the principal accused. Mere receipt or possession of money, would not by itself attract the ingredients of Section 201 IPC. Therefore, the invocation of Section 201 IPC against the petitioner is not supported by the material collected during investigation.
18. It is also significant to note that, apart from the alleged disclosure statements of the co-accused and the consequent recovery relied upon by the prosecution, there is no independent material connecting the petitioner with either the planning or execution of the alleged dacoity. None of the eyewitnesses has identified the petitioner, nor does the charge sheet attribute to him any overt act in relation to the commission of the principal offence or that the petitioner had knowledge or reason to believe that the amount he received was proceeds of any crime. In the absence of any such independent incriminating evidence, permitting the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner for the offences alleged would amount to compelling him to undergo a criminal trial on the basis of mere suspicion, which cannot be sustained in law.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the material collected during investigation does not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner. The prosecution case, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is not founded on any direct evidence, eyewitness account, or other independent incriminating material, but substantially rests upon the statements of co-accused and the consequential recovery relied upon by the investigating agency. Further, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue in these circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and would result in subjecting the petitioner to a criminal trial despite the absence of a prima facie case. Such a case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law.
Conclusion
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations contained in the FIR, the charge sheet, and the material collected, even if accepted at their face value, do not prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 395, 411, and 201 IPC against the petitioner/accused No.11. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would result in miscarriage of justice and cannot be sustained in law, and is liable to be interfered with in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
21. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner-A11 in S.C.No.88 of 2025 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Additional Family Court-Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking The Cases Relating to Atrocities against Women at Medchal-Malkajgiri District, for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 395, 411 and 201 of IPC, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
