1 APHC010232162021 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: 4027/2021 Between: Chittala Suresh Kumar @ Suresh ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. TURAGA SAI SURYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner/sole accused, to quash the proceedings in FIR No.426 of 2021, dated 25.06.2021 on the file of Station House Officer, Bhimavaram I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District registered for the offences under Sections 448, 506(2) IPC. 2. The defacto complainant/2nd respondent filed a complaint alleging that he has been running a business of purchasing prawns and exporting them under the name of “Bhargavi Sea Foods” by raising a shed about 11 years ago at KGRL College, Area, Bhimavaram. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused approached the defacto complainant in the year 2018 with a proposal of entering into a business partnership with him. Subsequent thereto, about 85 boxes of prawns, purchased by the defacto complainant, were sold by the accused in his name by exporting the stock to Orissa, Calcutta and also to Bhuvaneshwar Bheemaraju Company. It is further alleged that the defacto complainant requested for payment for the said stock since 15.10.2018, but the petitioner has not made any payments or provided any account of the transactions and protracted the issue. It is alleged that on 25.06.2021 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner visited the de facto complainant’s business premises, abused him and stated that he would not pay any money. The petitioner also threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, the Station House Officer, I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District registered a case in 3 Cr.No.426 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 448, 506(2) IPC against the accused/petitioner herein. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Mr. G. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is an entirely false case fabricated against the petitioner due to civil disputes, with all allegations being baseless and frivolous. It is falsely alleged that the petitioner indebted to him and created a nuisance on 25.06.2021. The petitioner asserts that no such incident occurred on 25.06.2021 as alleged in the complaint, and the allegations were invented to have an unlawful gain. The counsel further argued that the allegations in the FIR do not establish that the petitioner has committed an offence under Sections 448 and 506(2) of IPC, as the allegations fail to substantiate the charges under these provisions. Therefore, prays to allow the petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner are sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 384 read with 120(b) IPC. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor too concurred with the submission made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4 7. 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 against the petitioner in Crime No.426 of 2021 on the file of I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. 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. 5 9. 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. 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 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 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 6 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. 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 7 (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. 12. As can be seen from the complaint, the allegations made against the petitioner are that the petitioner/accused owes certain amount to the defacto complainant with regard to business transactions, and when the defacto complainant asked for repayment of the said amount, the petitioner protracted the payment and on the date of incident, he went to the business premises of the defacto complainant, abused him and threatened with dire consequences. Thus, the allegations would show that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant with regard to payment of certain amount out of business transactions, which is essentially of a civil nature. 13. 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 accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should 4 (2009) 8 SCC 751 8 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. 15. As per the above decisions, when the complaint discloses civil transactions, this Court should see whether a dispute which is essentially of civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence and whether a civil remedy is available. 16. In the case on hand, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are said to be partners in business. The allegations would reveal that out of business transactions, disputes arose between them in relation to certain payments. In 5 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 9 such circumstances, it cannot be brushed aside that the present complaint is lodged to pressurize the accused to settle the payment, by giving colour of criminal offence to the civil dispute. Admittedly, there lies a civil remedy for recovery of amounts due, if any, to which a person is lawfully entitled. Having gone through the allegations levelled, it appears that the dispute is essentially of civil nature and the same has been given a cloak of criminal offence. 17. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and hence, the proceedings against him are liable to be set aside. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.426 of 2021 on the file of I Town Police Station, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 24.02.2025 KGR