APHC010147432021 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: 2565/2021 Between: Gadde Mallikarjuna Rao, and Others The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. V HIMABINDU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PRABHU NATH 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 1 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: 2565/2021 Gadde Mallikarjuna Rao, and ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: [3333] ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the petitioner/accused No.1 to 4 to quash the FIR in Cr.No.45 of 2021 on the file of Amaravathi Police Station, Guntur District for the offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 is aged about 75 years and suffered with paralysis. The respondent No.2 on request made by the 1st petitioner has permitted him to live on the upstairs of his building. While things being so, the de-facto complainant came to know that the house tax has come in the name of the 1st petitioner through Village Volunteer and upon enquiry the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 came to know that the petitioner No.1 has created a sale deed on 09.01.2019 in his favour with the help of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 by creating forged document and registered the same without his knowledge. He submitted that he did not sell his house to anybody, and that one occasion, the petitioner No.1 requested him to sign as a witness and got the sale deed registered in his name. Thereafter, he 3 approached the Amaravathi Police station and lodged a complaint against petitioners herein for the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the de-facto complainant has been falsely implicated in this case at the instigation of the children of the de-facto complainant, who disagreed their father's decision to sell the house. The property was registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office in the year 2019. Thereafter, the first petitioner got his name mutated in the village revenue records and has been paying house tax since then. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 served as witnesses, while petitioner No. 4 prepared the relevant documents. After purchasing the house, the first petitioner leased part of it to Sri Ganapa Praveen Kumar Reddy, Kasu Goverdhan Reddy, and Guvvala Venkata Hanimi Reddy on 21.09.2020, and they are currently occupying that part of the premises. It is reported that the children of the de-facto complainant came to the first petitioner’s home, attacked him, and attempted to evict him, causing him injuries. Consequently, the first petitioner filed a complaint, which is a subject matter of Crime No. 29 of 2021 at the Amaravathi Police Station, for the offence 4 punishable under Sections 323, 341, and 506 and the same is still pending. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioner No.1 and the de facto complainant since long time. The petitioner has also filed a suit vide O.S.No.155 of 2021 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli seeking permanent injunction in respect of the house in question and the court has granted interim injunction on 12.03.2021 and the said suit is pending. Therefore, with a view to exert undue pressure on the petitioner No.1, the de facto complainant lodged a criminal complaint. In such circumstances, taking cognizance against the petitioners/ accused No.1 to 4 herein for the aforesaid offence is not maintainable. Therefore, the complaint filed by the de-facto complaint is liable to be quashed. 5. 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: 5 “Whether the proceedings in Crime No.45 of 2021 on the file of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, is liable to be quashed against the petitioner by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 6. 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. 6 Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 7. 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 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 7 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” 8. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3” 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 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 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. (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 9 an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 9. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 10. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused in the present Crime. are under Section 420 I.P.C. 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.” 11. Now, it is to be examined whether the aforesaid offence 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. The allegation levelled against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 is that, petitioner No.1 created a forged sale deed dated 09.1.2019 in his favour with the help of petitioner Nos.2 to 4 10 for the property belonging to the de-facto complainant and registered the same in his name without the knowledge of the de- facto complainant. 13. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner No.1 herein filed O.S.No.155 of 2021 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Satenapalli against the de-facto complainant and others seeking permanent injunction in respect of the house in question. Wherein, an interim injunction was granted in favor of the 1st petitioner. Pending the said suit for consideration, the present complaint has been lodged by the de-facto complainant. Thus it is clear that the dispute is of civil in nature. It is settled law that conversion of such civil dispute giving colour of criminal offence is abuse of process of Court, which cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another4” 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 4 (2009) 8 SCC 751 11 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 used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.” 14. In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others5” 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. 5 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 12 15. In “Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh6” the Apex Court held that when civil suit is pending where the ownership of the property has to be decided in the pending suit as the same is subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil litigation, criminal proceedings cannot be primarily prosecuted. 16. In the instant case, the contents of the complaint are clearly civil in nature. Both parties have previously approached the civil Court seeking relief, and therefore, the de-facto complainant lodging a criminal complaint against the petitioners is not sustainable. When a civil dispute is pending between the two parties, and parallel filing of criminal proceedings is not tenable under law. Furthermore, it is settled law that when a civil suit is pending between the two parties, the question of subsequently preferring criminal proceedings, and seeking penal action is not sustainable under law. 17. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this is a clear cut case of civil dispute in nature and in that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that in order to 6 (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679 13 wreak vengeance against the petitioner herein, the criminal proceedings has been initiated against the accused No.1 to 4/petitioners. 18. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the proceedings against the accused Nos.1 to 4/petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the FIR in Cr.No.45 of 2021 on the file Amaravathi Police Station, against the accused Nos.1 to 4/petitioners herein. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 04.02.2025 KKV 14 430 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2565/2021 Date: 04.02.2025 KKV 15