1 APHC010130802021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2614/2021 Between: Subrahmanyam Jallipalli @ Jallipalli Babu Rao ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. VENKAT CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following: 2 ORDER This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.110 of 2021, on the file of II Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506(2), 355, 418 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.2. The defacto complainant is the 2nd respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: a) The 2nd respondent herein is a doctor in ASRAM Hospital and her husband is also working as doctor. She filed a private complaint before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, alleging that when she intended to purchase land, she was introduced by her landlord to accused No.1, who claims to be the owner of land in T.S.No.142/2 in R.R. Pet, Eluru, through accused No.2/petitioner herein, who is doing real estate business. b) It is further alleged that on 26.02.2018, the site in T.S.No.142/2 was registered in favour of the defacto complainant by the accused No.1 in the presence of accused No.2 and one Duggirala Somayajulu for a consideration amount of Rs.1,22,25,000/-, which was paid by the defacto complainant to accused No.1 at different instances. The site in T.S.No.142/2 was successfully registered in the name of the defacto complainant by the competent authority i.e., Sub-Registrar Office. At this juncture, on 21.09.2019, the defacto 3 complainant found in the district edition of daily newspaper Sakshi that “the vacant site in T.S.No.142/2 in R.R.Pet, Eluru belongs to the playground of Sri Subbamma Devi High School and persons whoever purchase or occupy the same site are liable to be punished by the Municipal Commissioner, Eluru”. Thereupon, the defacto complainant along with her husband rushed to the said site, witnessed the police persons guarding it and there are sign boards displaying that “The Site belongs to Government School, By Order: Municipal Commissioner, Eluru”. c) It is further alleged that when the defacto complainant approached accused No.2 after seeing those sign boards in the site and questioned him as to why he falsely represented the Government site to be the own site of accused No.1, accused No.2 threatened them with dire consequences, stating that he has not registered the site and it is accused No.1 who has registered the site in their favour. d) Thereupon, on 29.09.2019, the defacto complainant has issued a legal notice to accused No.1, who is the seller of the site. Accused No.1 called the defacto complainant and her husband to the house of accused No.2, where accused No.1 told that the matter would be settled within one month and threatened the defacto complainant and her husband with dire consequences if they disclose the matter to anyone. e) Thereafter, on 17.12.2019 at about 5.00 p.m., the defacto complainant along with her husband, one Sogaram Lakshmana Rao, a realter 4 and her driver Durga Prasad went to the house of the accused No.2 wherein accused No.1 is also present. Then, accused No.1 caught hold of shirt of the defacto complainant’s husband and dragged him out of the house gate, abused the defacto complainant and her personnel in filthy language. That the accused No.2 caught hold of the hand of the defacto complainant and dragged her violently to gate and threw her out. The entire incident was witnessed by Lakshmana Rao and Durga Prasad and some passers-by. f) On 07.01.2020, the defacto complainant made a complaint before SHO, II town Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2, narrating the entire incidents. However, the police did not register any case and did not enquire into the matter. Hence, she filed the private complaint before the trial Court, which was forwarded to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station for investigation and report. g) Pursuant thereto, the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2021 under Sections 420, 506(2), 355, 418 read with 34 I.P.C. against accused Nos.1 and 2. Seeking to quash the said proceedings against him, accused No.2 filed the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor for respondent-State and Smt. Nimmagedda Revathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 submitted that the petitioner herein is falsely implicated in the present crime. On a bare reading of the allegations made in the complaint, no offence is made out against the petitioner herein. Except making an allegation that the petitioner was present at the time of negotiations between the defacto complainant and accused No.1, it is nowhere mentioned about the acts said to have been committed by the petitioner herein/accused No.2. The petitioner is neither a signatory nor a witness to the sale deed executed between the accused No.1 and the defacto complainant. It is further contended that the defacto complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Family Court), West Godavari, Eluru, for cancellation of sale deed between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant and for recovery of sale consideration paid to accused No.1 and the petitioner herein is not a party defendant to the said suit, which shows that he is no way concerned with the said sale transaction. He, therefore, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed the offences. It is further contended that the allegations would clearly show that it is the petitioner herein who introduced accused No.1 to the defacto complainant and that he was present during negotiations held between the defacto complainant and accused No.1. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6 7. Learned Public Prosecutor concurred with the submissions of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 8. 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 in Crime No.110 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District, is liable to be quashed against the petitioner herein by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 9. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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 7 sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 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; (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. 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, 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 8 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” 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: (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. 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 9 (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 10. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused No.1 in the present C.C. are under Sections 420, 506(2), 355, 418 read with 34 of IPC. Section 420 I.P.C. reads as under: “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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 506(2) I.P.C. reads as under: 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.— And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. 10 Section 355 I.P.C. reads as under: Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation.— Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 418 I.P.C. reads as under: “Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.— Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 11. Now, it is to be examined whether the aforesaid offences would attract in the present case, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie material, if any, available on record. 12. As can be seen from the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, the petitioner/accused No.2, who is engaged in real estate business, introduced accused No.1 to the defacto complainant to be the owner of land in T.S.No.142/2 of R.R. peta, Eluru, and the defacto complainant purchased the said land from accused No.1 under a registered sale deed executed by accused No.1, for valid sale consideration. It is alleged 11 that after the said sale transaction, the petitioner came across a news item in the newspaper, wherein it is stated that the land which has been purchased by the defacto complainant belongs to the playground of Sri Subbamma Devi High School and the petitioner also noticed a sign board erected in the said land by order of the Municipal Commissioner, Eluru, stating that the land belongs to Government School. It is the further allegation that when questioned about the same, accused No.2 dragged the defacto complainant to the gate and threw her out and threatened her with dire consequences. 13. From the above, it is seen that accused No.2 is only a mediator to the sale transaction between the defacto complainant and accused No.1 and he is not the person who has executed the said sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. There is no allegation that the petitioner/accused No.2 has received any amounts from the defacto complainant in course of the said sale transaction. It is also to be noted that the defacto complainant has filed O.S.No.34 of 2020 on the file of VII Additional District Judge (Family Court), West Godavari, Eluru, seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in her favour by accused No.1 and for recovery of sale consideration paid by her to accused No.1. Admittedly, the petitioner herein is not arrayed as a defendant in the said suit. Thus, it substantiates the contention of the petitioner that he has not received any amounts from the defacto complainant in the course of sale transaction between the defacto complainant and accused No.1. There is absolutely no material to prove any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner in acting as a mediator to the sale transaction between the defacto 12 complainant with accused No.1, and thus, the offences under Sections 420 and 418 IPC do not attract in the present case. 14. So far as the offences under Sections 506(2) and 355 IPC are concerned, except alleging that when the defacto complainant questioned about fraudulent sale transaction, accused No.2 dragged her to gate and threw her out and threatened her with dire consequences, there is no prima facie material available on record to show that such an incident took place on the date of incident. 15. In the absence of any prima facie material and in view of the fact that accused No.2 has only played the role of a mediator to the sale transaction between accused No.1 and the defacto complainant, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the offences alleged would attract against the petitioner. Thus, continuing the present criminal proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.2 would amount to abuse of process of law. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in FIR No.110 of 2021 on the file of II Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this petition, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2025 KGR