1 APHC010502432021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7368/2021 Between: Kaligineedi Chandra Sekhara Rao and others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. U D JAI BHIMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. P DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.208 of 2021 dated 20.10.2021 on the file of Inavilli Police Station, East Godavari District for the offences registered under Sections 447, 506 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the 2nd respondent herein the de-facto complainant. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: The de-facto complainant took 3.11 acres of land on lease from one Veturi Venkata Lakshmi in the year 2004. Accused Nos.1 and 2 belonging to Bodusukuru Village trespassed into the leased land, for which the de-facto complainant filed a complaint vide ATC No.2/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Amalapuram. The petitioners No.1 and 2 herein also filed a suit in O.S.No.183 of 2016 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the de-facto complainant. Both the cases were pending for consideration in the Court. While that be so, on 13.09.2021, the de-facto complainant engaged workers to tend the land; the accused persons along with 50 others trespassed into the complainant’s leased coconut fields and threatened to kill the de-facto complainant. Therefore, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint with the police against the petitioners and the same was numbered as FIR No.208 of 2021. The present petition has been filed to quash the Crime No.208 of 2021. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the facts in the F.I.R., submits that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are plaintiffs in O.S.No.183 of 2016, which was filed seeking to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein/2nd respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that it is settled law that when a civil suit is pending between the two parties, the question of invoking criminal proceedings and seeking penal action is not sustainable under law. Therefore, the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant is liable to be quashed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners would attract the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners. Therefore, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. 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 in FIR No.208 of 2021 on the file of Inavilli Police Station, East Godavari District, are liable to be quashed against the petitioners by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 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 4 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. 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 1 AIR 1960 SC 866 5 (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. 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” 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 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 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. (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. 8. A perusal of the record shows that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. The petitioners filed O.S.No.183 of 2016 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against the respondent No.2 herein and the de-facto complainant filed A.T.C.No.2 of 2018 on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge Court, Amalapuram. While both the said civil cases are pending consideration, the de-facto complainant 7 filed the present complaint against the petitioners herein, which in fact to pressurize the petitioners herein to settle the said civil dispute under the guise of the present criminal case. 9. If the dispute is purely civil in nature and conversion of such civil dispute giving colour of criminal offence is abuse of process of Court. Pending the civil suit, the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant converting the civil dispute into criminal, which cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments. 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 ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes.” 10. 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 4 (2009) 8 SCC 751 5 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 8 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. 11. In “Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh6” 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. 12. In the instant case, the contents of the complaint are clearly civil in nature. Both parties have previously approached the Civil Court and the cases filed by them are pending on the date of filing of the complaint. When a civil dispute is pending between two parties, parallel filing of criminal proceedings is not tenable under law. 13. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this is a clear cut case of civil dispute in nature, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein are nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against the accused Nos.1 to 3/petitioners herein are liable to be quashed. 6 (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679 9 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in FIR No.208 of 2021 on the file of Inavilli Police Station, East Godavari District against the accused Nos.1 to 3/petitioners herein. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 28.01.2025 KGR