APHC010128892019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2682/2019 Between: Shankar Prasad Gupta And Co and Others The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. O MANOHER REDDY 1 Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2682/2019 Shankar Prasad Gupta And Co ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Ap and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): KIRAN KUMAR VADLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PROSECUTOR (AP) O MANOHER REDDY VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 [3333] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 The Court made the following Order: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 & 2 in Crime No.452 of 2015 registered on the file of Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 120b IPC, 156(3) Cr.P.C 2. The case of the petitioners is that the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 is the onion merchant by supplying onions from Kurnool to Calcutta through lorries to the accused firm M/s Shakar Prasad Gupta & Co. and the accused is used to sent the amount in cash and some time they sent through cheques or RTGS to the complainant every month. The accused firm was acting as agent and selling the agricultural produce i.e., onions on receipt of the sale prices and after deduction of his commission and other incidental expenses and uses to send the Statement of account along with the sale proceeds statement containing the sale proceed and particulars of expenses and net sale amount payable to the complainant. Thereby, the complainant/2nd respondent induced to believe that the 3 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 petitioners/accused would honor the net payable amounts as per the sale proceeds statement. But the petitioners failed to honor the payments and the complainant/2nd respondent suspected the intention of the accused. Even though, the payments were not made, the complainant confirmed continued to supply the onions believing the words of the accused and the outstanding amount payable mounted to staggering figure of Rs.1,49,11,416/-. When the petitioners/accused stopped sending the statement of sales, the complainant insisted the accused to pay the above said amount due as per running account. But he refused went on postponing the payment on some or other pretext and displayed no sign of payment but insisted for supply of onions without intention of paying the sale amounts. By the acts of the inducement of the petitioner, the complainant was induced to supply Rs.1.49 Crores worth of onions. Since accused was not responding and failed to pay the due amount, the 2nd respondent complaint got issued legal notice, even on receipt of legal notice, the petitioner/accused failed to pay the amount due and thereby the 2nd respondent/complainant made a complaint. Basing on the said complaint, a case was registered in Cr.No.452/2015, dated 29.12.2015 on the file of Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, 4 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 Kurnool District for the offences punishable under Section 409, 420, 120b IPC, 156(3) Cr.P.C 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are nothing to do with the offence with which they are charged. The issue involved in the plaint is purely civil in nature and filing a criminal case is nothing but abuse of process of court. Hence, requested to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, would submit that there are various allegations attributed against the petitioner and the issue involved herein is misappropriation of funds which would be determined in a full-fledged trial by competent civil court, since the offence alleged herein is grievous in nature. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is: 5 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 “Whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.452 of 2015 on the file of Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. 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. 6 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 8. 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: 9. 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; (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 1AIR 1960 SC 866 7 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. As per material on record, the petitioners/accused are the agents of the complainant and the duty of the petitioners/accused is to sell the agricultural produce i.e., onions, on receipt of sale consideration they have to pay the sale consideration amount to 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 8 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 the complainant after deduction of his commission and other incidental expenses. It appears from the record that the petitioner/accused did not pay the amount the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the petitioners demanding them to pay the sale proceeds. For recovery of the amount from the petitioners/accused, the complainant has filed a suit for recovery of the debt amount before the competent civil court. Inspite of do so, the complainant has filed the present complaint to pressurize the petitioners/accused to settle the amount due to him. Therefore, it can be said that the dispute involved in the present case is purely of a civil in nature. 13. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and another3” the Apex Court held as follows: “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not 3 (2009) 8 SCC 751 9 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.” 14. In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others4” the Apex Court held that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. 15. On perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the complainant has lodged the present complaint aganst the petitioners/accused herein to recover the amount due by them in 4 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 10 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 the sale transaction. The complainant has a remedy by filing a civil suit for recovery of the amount. 16. Therefore, it can be said that the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of a criminal offence. Further, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes. Even if the complaint allegations are taken into consideration, one cannot conclude prima facie, that the petitioners/accused had committed the alleged offences. Since, the dispute is of civil in nature, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings ought not have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interests of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. 17. It is also relevant to note that the proceedings against accused No.3 were already quashed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.04.2019 in Crl.P.No.926 of 2019 on the ground that the matter has to be adjudicated in Civil Court. 18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. A purely civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the petitioners/accused or to pressurize 11 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 them to settle the civil disputes. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.452/2015, dated 29.12.2015 on the file of Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool, Kurnool District, are hereby quashed.ss Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 04.02.2025 KKV 12 VS, J Crl.P.No.2682 of 2019 441 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2682/2019 Date: 04.02.2025 KKV