1 APHC010125662020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1635/2020 Between: MANNEM SAMBASIVARAO, , S/O. ACHAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O.8-159/13, NANDIGAMA, RAMALINGESWARA NAGAR, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2. AYYANNA NALLANI, , S/O. GOVINDARAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HINDU, R/O. KAKANI NAGAR, NANDIGAMA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed, by the Petitioner / Accused No.3, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.558 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18602. 1 For short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 For short ‘IPC’ 2 2. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State. Though notice was sent to Respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner had no intention to cheat Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that, not even a single pie is received by the Petitioner and his son as alleged by Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are baseless. Learned counsel would further submit that, in fact, in the Petitioner herein was shown as Accused No.1, however, the Police, after investigation, has shown the Petitioner as Accused No.3 in the charge sheet. Learned counsel would further submit that either the Petitioner or his son tried to help Respondent No.2 to get job for his daughter. There are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.W.Palnitkar and others vs. State of Bihar and others3. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that, there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. Petitioner her in connivance with Accused Nos.1 and 2, cheated Respondent No.2 on the premise of getting job for his daughter. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that there is verifiable material to proceed 3 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 108 (SC) 3 further in this matter. It is not the stage to consider the plea of the Petitioner for quashment of the case against him. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that, his daughter having completed Post Graduation in Engineering was staying at USA and was in search of job. On that, Petitioner/Accused No.3, being a friend of Respondent No.2, introduced Accused No.1 through his son i.e., Accused No.2 for arranging job to his daughter through their job consultancy in USA. On the deceitful words of Accused Nos.1 to 3, Respondent No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- in two spells and to the bank Account of Accused No.1. However, Accused Nos.1 to 3 without providing any job to the daughter of Respondent No.2, used the said amount for their personal use and thereby cheated Respondent No.2. 6. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others4, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; 4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 4 iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not 5 required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” (emphasis supplied) 7. As seen from the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as charge sheet, as rightly put by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, there are specific allegations levelled against the Petitioner/Accused No.3 in the commission of the alleged offence. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial before the trial Court. This Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the judgment referred to supra, and considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that, when there is verifiable material, which has to be decided during trial, it is not apposite to quash the same at this stage. The petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.07.2025 Dinesh 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.1635 of 2020 Dt.16.07.2025 Dinesh