APHC010317642021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5096/2021 Between: Chikati Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.324 of 2018, dated 21.12.2018 on the file of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District. 2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused and the 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, West Godavari District stating that the petitioner herein is a managing director of Chandini Seeds and that the complainant is an agriculturalist. The petitioner herein appointed the complainant as an agent at Santhinagar at his house and subsequently, the complainant started giving Maize seeds to the farmers around Eluru town and having believed the words of the petitioner, the complainant made the farmers to cultivate the said seed and thus a total of 70 tons of Maize seed was yielded. The petitioner had to pay an amount of Rs.25,25,000/-, but, instead of paying the said amount, the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated the said amount for himself. It is further stated that the complainant was thoroughly cheated by the words of the petitioner and that the petitioner has misappropriated the entrusted yields of the farmers. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed a complaint before the Police, Eluru on 16.06.2016, as no action was taken against the petitioner, the complainant has filed the present complaint requesting to take action against the petitioner, subsequent to which, the Eluru III Town Police were directed by the court below to register an FIR and to investigate into the matter. Hence, the Police have registered a case against the petitioner in FIR.No.324 of 2018 on the file of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 IPC. With a plea to quash the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 2nd respondent herein has earlier filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act, making similar allegations against the petitioner vide C.C.No.97 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru which ended with acquittal on 15.11.2016. In the said judgment, the Court below observed that it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prove that there exists a legally enforceable debt to bring the petitioner within the meaning of debt as stated in Section 138 of N.I. Act, and that no positive and dependable proof was produced by the complainant to show that the petitioner is indebted an amount of Rs.25,25,000/-. He further contends that when the 2nd respondent failed to prove that the petitioner herein is indebted the said amount, the question of filing a fresh complaint on the same allegations without any proof would amount to abuse of process of court. Hence requested to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.324 of 2018, on the file of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 IPC,therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 08.09.2021, this Court has passed the following interim order: “….Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Investigation Officer while proceedings with the investigation, not to file the charge sheet in the Trial Court until further orders.” 6. 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 petitioners in F.I.R.No.324 of 2018, dated 21.12.2018 on the file of Eluru III Town Police Station, 4 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 West Godavari District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. 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. 8. 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; 1AIR 1960 SC 866 5 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 (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. 9. 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 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” 10. 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: 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 (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 an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. From the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner herein has filed the present petition seeking quash of the impugned case on the ground that earlier on the same facts, the defacto complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the criminal Court and the said case was ended in acquittal. Basing on the same facts, the present FIR was also registered alleging cheating and breach of 7 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 trust after the said case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, ended in acquittal vide order dated 15.11.2016 in C.C.No.97 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Eluru. 13. On a perusal of the order dated 15.11.2016, it can be seen that the learned Magistrate, basing on the infirmity pointed out from the testimony of the defacto complainant, the evidence of other witnesses has no probative significance. Further it was held that the defacto complainant failed to prove the subsisting legal liability or debt. It is imperative on the part of the complainant to prove that there exists a legally enforceable debt to bring the petitioner within the net of Section 138 of N.I. Act. It found no positive and dependable proof to show that the petitioner is indebted an amount of Rs.25,25,000/- in connection with the supply of maize seed. Thus, the learned Magistrate concluded that the petitioner herein is not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act and the petitioner was accordingly acquitted. 14. Once a competent court has rendered such a finding, the same allegations cannot be the basis for fresh proceedings. Allowing another case on identical grounds would not only be contrary to legal principles but would also amount to an abuse of the process of Court, causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioner. Therefore, any attempt to reinitiate proceedings on the same set of facts and allegations would be unsustainable in law. If the criminal proceedings are continued against the petitioner herein, it would amount to abuse of process of law. As per the principle No.1 of the principles laid down in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (1st Supra) if 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, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. Applying the said principle to the present 8 VS,J Crlp_5096_2021 facts of the case and keeping in view the above discussion, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 15. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in F.I.R.No.324 of 2018, dated 21.12.2018 on the file of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District are hereby quashed against the petitioner. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 17.02.2025 Gss