APHC010204642022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3131/2022 Between: 1. UMADEVI (YERASI) DOSAKAYALA, W/O D MURALI MOHAN REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD MISTRESS (SGT), MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD SCHOOL, KOILAKUNTLA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, NOW NANDYALA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOILAKUNTLA POLICE STATION, KURNOOL DISTRICT, NOW NANDYALA DISTRICT 2. BANDI BRAMHANANDA REIDY, S/O KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, YAGANTIPALLI VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, NOW NANDYALA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, to quash the proceedings against her in Crime No.70 of 2022 of Koilakuntla Police Station, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2 2. Heard Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is Accused No.2 and she is the wife of Accused No.1 and there are no allegations against the Petitioner either to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC or Section 506 IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that, it is alleged against Accused No.1 that he has delivered the property in the name of his sister in the year 2008 by way of a registered gift deed and having settled the property, Accused No.1 collected an amount of Rs.2,18,000/- from Respondent No.2 and executed a registered sale deed. It is further alleged that, within a week of execution of such registered sale deed in the name of Respondent No.2, he approached the authorities for getting loan over the property and obtained Encumbrance Certificate and then it came to his notice that the property stands in the name of the sister of Accused No.1. It is further alleged that, when Respondent No.2 questioned the sale transaction with Accused No.1, the Petitioner/Accused No.2, who is the wife of Accused No.1, intervened and threatened to take action against Respondent No.2 and that is how the case is lodged against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is a sheer abuse of process of law. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 3 5. At this stage, it is apposite to extract Sections 415 and 420 IPC, which read as under: “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. 420. 420. 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.” 6. Considering the submissions made and fair look at the contents of the complaint and the other material placed on record, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, except the capacity of the wife of Accused No.1, nothing is attributed in specific against the Petitioner to attract the offence of cheating against the Petitioner. 7. For ready reference, Sections 503 and 506 IPC are extracted hereunder: “503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished 4 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 8. In the light of the legal positions referred to supra, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka1, and applying the same to the factual matrix of the present case, this Court is of the view that, absolutely there are no ingredients to attract the offences of cheating or criminal intimidation against the Petitioner/Accused No.2. Except the bald and omnibus allegations, there is no iota of material to connect the Petitioner/Accused No.2 with the alleged crime. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.70 of 2022 of Koilakuntla Police Station, Kurnool District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:24.01.2025 Dinesh 1 (2015) 7 SCC 423 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.3131 of 2022 Dt.24.01.2025 Dinesh