APHC010127242021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1961/2021 Between: Kalagaravenkata Krishna and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.88 of 2021 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District against the petitioners, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 149 of IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.3 and 4, the 3rd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The 3rd respondent herein has submitted a complaint to the Police stating that her father has purchased a property on 22.01.1972 in Sy.No.262 of 2018 of Vakalapudi Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal from one Cheekatla Venkanna vide registered sale deed No.555/1972 in Sub-Registrar Office, Kakinada. Ever since, the 3rd respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, even after the demise of the father of the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, on 30.03.2013, the 3rd respondent has sold the aforesaid property to accused Nos.1 and 2 who are residents of Jagannadapuram, Kakinada and as well as the petitioners herein under registered sale deed bearing document Nos.1833 of 2013, 1834 of 2013 and 1835 of 2013. 3. However, it is alleged that the accused have cheated her and played fraud without paying any sale consideration for the said purchases. They have threatened the 3rd respondent that they would kill her if she insists for sale consideration and that they would file false criminal case against her. It is further stated that the petitioners herein along with the other accused have forged the sale deeds and that she was threatened when she has questioned the same. Stating thus, the 3rd respondent has requested the police to initiate appropriate action against the accused. Upon receiving the said complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.88/2021 on 18.03.2021 against the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 149 of IPC. Seeking quashment of the said proceedings against the petitioners herein, the present petition is filed. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated the facts of the case and further submitted that the 3rd respondent alleges that the petitioners along with other accused have registered the documents and have not paid the sale considerations, however, in contra, she alleges that all the accused have forged the sale deeds and that the 3rd respondent was threatened when she has questioned the same. On the face of the record, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are improbable and hence, the petitioners herein shall not unnecessarily undergo trial for the false allegations levelled against them. Further, they are not liable to be punished under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 149 of IPC. Hence, requested to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506 read with 149 of IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 25.03.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…In view of the prima-facie contradictory allegations in the complaint, which prima-facie improbablize the entire complaint, there shall be stay of investigation in Crime No.88 of 2021 of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari under Section 420, 468, 471, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC including arrest of the petitioners.” 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R.No.88 of 2021 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District, 4 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 8. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 9. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows: In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 10. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2” 11. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal3” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 (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 FIR 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 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. (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. 12. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 13. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the 3rd respondent is the owner and possessor of the property in Sy.No.262/2018 of Vakalapudi village, Kakinada Rural Mandal. The said property was sold to the accused under registered sale deed bearing document Nos.1833 of 2013, 1834 of 2013 and 1835 of 2013, but it is alleged 7 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 that the 3rd respondent has not received any sale consideration from the accused for the said purchase and that she was threatened not to insist for sale consideration. It can also be seen that the 3rd respondent has also alleged that the accused, with an intention to cause financial loss to her have forged the sale deeds, which is contradictory to what she has stated earlier in the complaint regarding the non-payment of the sale consideration. The Apex Court in Vidhyadhar Vs. Mankikrao4, held that a sale deed is not invalid on account of non-payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the deed. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs.100.00, the sale would be complete. The same principle applies to the present case also. Once the document is registered in favour of the petitioners herein and the sale is complete, it cannot be alleged that the 3rd respondent was not paid the total sale consideration. 14. Hence, when the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein by the defacto complainant are contradictory with each other, continuation of criminal proceedings as against the accused/petitioners herein would amount to abuse of process of court. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1st Supra) if continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 4 1999 0 AIR(SC) 1441 8 VS,J Crlp_1961_2021 15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.88 of 2021 on the file of Sarpavaram Police Station, East Godavari District are hereby quashed in respect of the petitioners herein. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 20.01.2025 Gss