Potta Suresh vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed FIR No. 212 of 2022. The Court held that the registration of an FIR must disclose the commission of an offence. It noted that several benches of the High Court had previously quashed FIRs and charge sheets concerning the transportation, possession, or sale of tobacco products, holding that such acts do not constitute a crime under relevant enactments like the Indian Penal Code, the Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation Of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, or the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, unless the products are stolen or there is a specific complaint to that effect. The Court found that registering an FIR on mere suspicion and seizing tobacco products, in the absence of disclosure of an offence, is not sustainable. The Court distinguished the case relied upon by the revenue, stating it was not applicable as it dealt with the seizure of unaccounted money in an election context, not the mere possession of tobacco products. The Court directed the Station House Officer to return the seized tobacco products to the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Potta Suresh, filed a Criminal Petition seeking to quash FIR No. 212 of 2022, registered on August 21, 2022, at Ramabhadrapuram Police Station. The FIR was registered under Sections 41 and 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) based on a complaint by the Sub-Inspector of Police. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of various tobacco products worth Rs. 5,72,700/- without proper documentation, such as receipts, invoices, or GST details. The seized stock was unclaimed. The petitioner contended that the FIR was unsustainable as it did not disclose the commission of any offence, and that similar FIRs concerning tobacco products had been quashed previously. The revenue argued that the police were empowered to register the FIR under Section 102 Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner's failure to produce ownership documents.

Key Issues

1. Whether the registration of an FIR under Sections 41 and 102 of the Cr.P.C. is legally sustainable when the information furnished does not disclose the commission of any cognizable or non-cognizable offence, specifically concerning the possession of tobacco products? (Section 154 Cr.P.C.) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Sections 41 and 102 of the Cr.P.C. only provide for powers and procedures, not for registering an FIR without an underlying offence. They contended that the FIR was unsustainable as it did not disclose any offence, and that previous High Court judgments have quashed similar FIRs related to tobacco products. They also argued that tobacco products are perishable and sought their release. Reliance was placed on Crl.P. No. 583 of 2022 and Crl.P. No. 4964 of 2021. Revenue's arguments: The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the police were empowered to register the FIR under Section 102 Cr.P.C. because the petitioner failed to produce documents proving ownership of the seized stock. They contended that the FIR was legally sustainable and relied on the decision in Ramesh vs. The State and another [Crl.O.P.No.5190 of 2021].