1 APHC010148902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2641/2021 Between: Ommi Venkata Nagaraju and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,), has been filed by the petitioners/accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in Crime No.80 of 2020 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (i) The de facto complainant filed a report on 19.02.2020, alleging that he had purchased Ac.1.70 cents in Sy.No.7/5 of Narava Village through Document No.4563/2007 (SRO Gajuwaka) on 10.09.2007 and had been in possession since then. He claimed that the petitioners, with the help of Thotti Madhusudhan Reddy, Thotti Kavitha, and Ommi Venkat Naga Raju, attempted to grab his land using fabricated documents (Doc. Nos. 4718/2006, 5143/2005, 5144/2005). The de facto complainant lodged a complaint in SPANDANA on 30.12.2019 and stated that on 01.01.2020, while clearing bushes, the petitioners, along with anti-social elements, threatened him and began constructing compound walls and sheds with hired goons. He requested the police to take necessary action. (ii) Based on the report, the Pendurthy Police registered FIR No.80/2020 for offences under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471, 420, 464 r/w 34 IPC and initiated an investigation. 3. Heard Sri P. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submits that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the present case and have nothing to do with the alleged offences. The 2nd petitioner, along with her late husband, executed a registered GPA-Cum-Agreement of Sale (Doc. No. 4718/2006) in favor of the 1st petitioner, who later sold the plots to petitioner Nos.4 to 17. The 2nd petitioner’s husband had legally purchased Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.225 (New Sy.No.7/5R) through a registered sale deed (Doc.No.5144/2005). Meanwhile, the 2nd respondent is claiming ownership based on an Agreement of Sale- Cum-GPA (Doc.No.4563/2007) executed by Namburi Anuradha and Namburi Saroja Sushmitha. However, the deed description indicates that the 2nd respondent's land is adjacent to the 2nd petitioner’s property. 5. He further submits that the petitioners, through their Association- Seethammathalli Housing Society Plot Owners Welfare Association, filed O.S.No.84/2020 before the learned VI Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking a permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent, who attempted to demolish their plots. Along with the suit, an interim injunction (I.A. No. 153/2020) was also filed. After the suit was instituted, the 2nd respondent filed a false police report alleging trespass and forgery. The petitioners also filed a complaint on 02.01.2020 against the 2nd respondent’s illegal attempts, but no action was taken. The FIR was registered based on a false report with the ulterior motive of grabbing the petitioners’ legally owned properties. Learned counsel further submits that continuing the investigation would amount to an abuse of the legal process, and the case is liable to be quashed. 4 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondents submits that there are specific allegations made against the petitioners. The truth or otherwise of the allegations will be revealed during the course of the trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused in Crime No.80 of 2020 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 468, 471, 420, 464 r/w 34 of the IPC? 8. A bare perusal of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A Court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of 5 Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others 1 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. At paragraph Nos.102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 uncontroverted 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 1 AIR 1992 SC 604 6 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 10. In the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners/accused have attempted to grab the land of the de facto complainant by using fabricated documents and started constructing the compound walls and sheds in the said property with the assistance of goons. However, a perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners through their association filed O.S.No.84 of 2020 seeking permanent injunction against the de facto complainant. After the said suit was instituted, the present complaint was lodged by the de facto complainant. 11. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another2” 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 2 (2009) 8 SCC 751 7 ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.” 12. In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others3” 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. 13. In “Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh4” 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. 3 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 4 (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679 8 14. In the instant case, the only allegation against the petitioners is that they have attempted to grab the land of the de facto complainant by using fabricated documents and started constructing the compound walls and sheds in the said property with the assistance of goons. Therefore, it can be said that the dispute is civil in nature and the same has been given colour of a criminal offence. However, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with a dire intention to settle the dispute. Even if the allegations of the private complaint are taken into consideration, one cannot presume that the petitioners/accused had committed the alleged offence. Since the dispute is civil in nature, this Court is of the considered view that the Criminal Proceedings ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in civil suit. 15. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present dispute is civil in nature and a purely civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreack vengeance against the petitioners/accused or to pressurize them to settle the civil dispute, as such continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of court. Therefore, this criminal petition deserves to the allowed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/accused in Crime No.80 of 2020 of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. 9 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.10.02.2025 JLV