APHC010362522020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5856/2020 Between: 1. MOLA PICHHA RAO, S/O PEDDA VEERASWAMI, AGED 39 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3-12, NEAR KRISHNA TEMPLE, INDUGAPALLE, VATSAVAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VATSAVAI POLICE STATION KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. V NAGESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATESWARLU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O INDUGAPAILE, VATSAVAI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court Made the Following Order: The instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.635 of 2020 of Vatsavai Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.2 is not the victim in this case, as he has not suffered any loss of property, and there is no dishonest intention attributed against petitioner towards 2 Respondent No.2. Therefore, he cannot be considered as a victim in this matter. Learned counsel would further submits that the essential ingredients to attract the offence of cheating are absent in this case, and accordingly, prays for quashing of the FIR. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage, and the petitioner has approached this Court and obtained a stay. It is a case where the father of Respondent No.2 was shown as the document writer and signatory of a will dated 1989; however, the father of Respondent No.2 had in fact passed away in the year 1985. Therefore, Respondent No.2 approached the police for registration of the case against the petitioner on the ground that it may affect their family’s reputation and also the character of his father. Hence, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor prays that this Court to dispose of the petition by granting liberty to the police to proceed further with the investigation, so that truth will come out. 5. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to judgment in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others1, wherein, a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 3 i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the „rarest of rare cases‟. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an 4 appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P.Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 6. Considering the submissions made, there is no material before this Court to determine the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised in the present petition and the allegations made against the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not the stage for quashment of the FIR, as the allegations against the petitioner require detailed investigation. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the Police are directed to proceed with the investigation and file a report in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh petition in the event any adverse findings are made against him during the course of the investigation, if so advised. 5 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date : 25.07.2025 Asr 6 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.5856 of 2020 Dt.25.07.2025 Asr