APHC010475232022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7112 OF 2022 Between: Gadde Satyanarayana and another ...PETITIONERS/A1 and A2 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners/A1 and A2: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondents/Complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. N SRIRAM MURTHY The Court made the following ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.149 of 2022 of Duggirala Police Station, Guntur district, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447 and 427 IPC. SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioners herein/A1 and A2 sold Ac.0.40 cents of land in Survey No.407 of Chiluvuru village, Duggirala mandal, Guntur district to 2nd respondent/de facto complainant in the year 2010 for a sum of Rs.8.00 Lakhs. Since both are related, the said amount was honoured without any note, however possession was delivered to 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The registration of the land was being postponed on the pretext that the documents are with the Bank. While so, on 28.07.2022 at about 04.30 pm, A2 and her followers are alleged to have illegally entered into the said land and destroyed Guava plantation and caused loss to them. Based on the report given by 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on 10.08.2022, the present case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 and A2. 3. This Court, on 08.09.2022, while ordering notice to 2nd respondent, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.149 of 2022 of Duggirala Police Station, Guntur district, on the ground that the dispute appears to be purely civil in nature. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by 2nd respondent/de facto complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 and A2 submits that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447 and 427 IPC would not attract against the petitioners/A1 and A2 for the reason that the dispute is purely civil in nature. He submits that the alleged SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 3 transaction is a sham transaction and no such money transaction as alleged by 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has taken place and the present complaint is foisted with a view to knock away the property of 2nd petitioner herein/A2. He further submits that when 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his brother were trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the subject land, 2nd petitioner herein/A2 filed a suit in OS No.647 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali and the learned Judge, by judgment and decree dated 12.05.2025, granted permanent injunction in her favour restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has fairly accepted that there is no proof to the extent that the money has been paid to 2nd petitioner/A2, but he stated that 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his brother filed OS No.957 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, for specific performance of contract. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 8. Heard. Perused the record. 9. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 4 or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.1, wherein the Apex Court held, “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 5 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code; (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code; SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 6 (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that though it is alleged that A2 sold the land to 2nd respondent/de facto complainant under an oral agreement of sale, there is absolutely no proof of document to that extent. According to 2nd respondent/de facto complainant the entire sale amount of Rs.8.00 lakhs was paid to 2nd petitioner/A2, but there is also no SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 7 record to substantiate the same. Apart from the same, 2nd petitioner herein/A2 filed a suit in OS No.647 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, for grant of permanent injunction against 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his brother namely Gadde Chakradhar in respect of the subject land. In the said suit the defendants were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 12.05.2025 by granting permanent injunction in favour of 2nd petitioner herein/A2 restraining the defendants and their men from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. 11. Pursuant to filing of the said suit, 2nd respondent herein/de facto complainant has resorted in filing the present complaint on 10.08.2022 against the petitioners herein/A1 and A2 alleging that in the year 2010, A1 and A2 sold the land to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Survey No.407 of Chiluruvu village, Duggirala mandal to him for a consideration of Rs.8.00 Lakhs, and since 2nd petitioner/A2 is none other than his sister, the amount was honoured without any note and possession was delivered to him. While so, on 28.07.2022, at about 04.30 pm, A2 and her followers illegally entered into the said land and destroyed the Guava plantation. 12. Further, 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his brother Gadde Chakradhar filed OS No.957 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tenali, against 2nd petitioner/A2 for specific performance of oral agreement of SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 8 sale dated 18.09.2010 and the said suit was dismissed for non- prosecution, by judgment and decree dated 07.04.2025. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the suit in OS No.957 of 2022 filed by 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was dismissed for non-prosecution and it is also not the case of 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that any interlocutory application has been filed to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them in OS No.647 of 2022. 13. From the above, it is clear that the dispute between the petitioners/A1 and A2 and 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is purely civil in nature and they both filed civil suits against each other. Admittedly, the suit filed by 2nd petitioner/A2 for grant of permanent injunction was decreed and the suit filed by 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for specific performance of contract was dismissed for non-prosecution. 14. In the present case, one of the offences alleged against the petitioners/A1 and A2 is under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC reads as follows. “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 9 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 15. To attract an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, it is not sufficient to merely allege that a transaction has gone wrong or that money has been paid and not returned. The essential ingredients of cheating must be clearly established. Specifically, it must be shown that (i) the accused had a dishonest intention at the very inception of the transaction, (ii) the accused deceived the complainant, and (iii) by such deception, the complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver property or money. 16. In the present case, the contention of 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is that 2nd petitioner/A2 entered into an oral agreement of sale for a piece of land and, pursuant to such agreement, he paid a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash and was allegedly put in possession of the property. It is further alleged that the accused subsequently avoided executing the registered sale deed on one pretext or another. The complainant attempts to justify the absence of documentation by stating that the parties were related, and therefore, the transaction was based on mutual trust without any written agreement or receipt. However, this version suffers from serious evidentiary deficiencies. There is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the existence of the alleged oral agreement, the payment of such a substantial amount in cash, or the delivery of possession. In transactions involving immovable property, particularly where a substantial SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 10 amount like Rs. 8,00,000/- is involved, it is highly improbable that no documentary evidence whatsoever—such as a written agreement, receipt, witness statements, or any form of corroboration—would exist. Complete absence of such material renders the claim inherently doubtful. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that such an oral agreement did take place, the facts as presented do not disclose the necessary element of dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction. At best, the allegations suggest a subsequent failure or refusal to perform a promise, which would give rise to a civil dispute for specific performance or recovery of money, but not a criminal offence of cheating. The law is well settled that a mere breach of contract, without proof of fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very beginning, does not constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. In the present circumstances, the complainant’s allegations appear to be an attempt to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. The improbability of the transaction, coupled with the absence of any supporting material and the lack of evidence regarding initial dishonest intent, makes it clear that the basic ingredients of cheating are not satisfied. Therefore, prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC is not attracted in this case. 17. The other offences alleged against the petitioners/A1 and A2 fall under Sections 447 and 427 of the IPC, on the allegation that they unlawfully entered into the land of the de facto complainant and caused damage to the Guava crop. However, as the de facto complainant has failed to establish that SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 11 possession of the property was delivered to him by 2nd petitioner/A2, the question of attracting these offences does not arise, especially when the trial Court granted permanent injunction in favour of 2nd petitioner herein/A2 and against 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his men in respect of the subject land. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and since the dispute is purely civil in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A2 would amount to abuse of process of Court. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.149 of 2022 of Duggirala Police Station, Guntur district are hereby quashed against the petitioners/A1 and A2. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. Date:06.04.2026 Nsr SRK, J CrlP No.7112 of 2022 12 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7112 of 2022 Date:06.04.2026 Nsr