APHC010519002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7798/2022 Between: 1. B.P.FAKRUDDIN, S/O. LATE HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. SUHAN SADIQ,, S/O. B.P. FAKRUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH ARE MUSLIMS AND RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 76-119-D5-30, MAHAVEER NAGAR COLONY, KURNOOL CITY ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 2. S KHALEEL AHMED, S/O. S.C. MASTHAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MUSLIM, R/ O. PLOT NO. 48, RTC COLONY, BEHIND IDLI HOTEL, GOOTY ROAD, KURNOOL CITY. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. VARUN BYREDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2. SRINIVASA RAO MODUKURI The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2318 of 2021 on the file 1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’ 2 of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 200, 406, 420, 464, 477 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602. 2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1/State and Sri Modukuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the subject land is not an assigned land as alleged by Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that the said land was put under the prohibited list of properties in the year 2019 i.e., 15 years after the sale transaction between the Petitioners and Respondent No.2. The allegations leveled against the Petitioners are false and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent No.2 has converted a pure civil dispute into a criminal offence. Therefore, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another3. 2 for short ‘I.P.C.’ 3 2009 (8) SCC 751 3 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that, the subject land is an assigned land and Respondent No.2 purchased the same from the Petitioners in the year 2004. There are specific allegations against the Petitioners, which would attract the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that, there are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Point for Determination 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2318 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.? Determination by the Court 6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling 4 reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 is considered as the guiding torch in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 uncontroverted 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 4 AIR 1992 SC 604 5 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 8. In the instant case, Respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint against the Petitioners alleging that, Petitioner/Accused No.1, who is the junior paternal uncle of Respondent No.2, with a dishonest intention induced Respondent No.2 and offered to sell his housing Plot Nos.4, 5, 7 and 8 located in Sy.No.68/2A5 of Joharapuram Village, Kurnool though the same were assigned lands and he has no saleable interest. Accordingly, on 27.08.2004 Petitioner/Accused No.1 executed two Registered Sale Deeds in his favour vide Doc.Nos.9439 and 9440 of 2004 on receipt of sale 6 consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Subsequently, when Respondent No.2 was in need of money, tried to sell the said plots, he came to know that the said lands are assigned lands and they cannot be sold. Having come to know about the said fact, on 02.07.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., when Respondent No.2 along with one Syed Munna approached Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his son Petitioner/Accused No.2 and questioned the same and requested to return his amount by cancelling the documents, they picked up a quarrel, abused him in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Though he gave a complaint to the Police, as they did not take any action, he filed a private complaint. 9. The main allegation against the Petitioners is that, they sold the assigned lands to Respondent No.2 by concealing the said fact and thereby cheated him. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would clearly show that, the Registered Sale Deeds were executed by the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 on 27.08.2004, whereas, the subject land was put under the prohibited list of properties by way of a gazette notification in RCE2/2312/2013, dated 27.02.2019 for the purpose of India Housing buildings, which is after 15 years of the alleged sale transaction. As such, it is clear that, by the date of the sale of the property to Respondent No.2, the same was not an assigned land as alleged by Respondent No.2. Since the said land was put under prohibited list in the year 2019 and the sale transaction was of the year 2004, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 198 and 200 IPC do not attract. Admittedly, in 7 the instant case, there was not entrustment of any property of Respondent No.2 to the Accused and in view of the subsequent inclusion of the subject property in the prohibited list, dishonest intention and fraudulent inducement at the inception cannot be attributed against the Petitioners. As such, the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC do not attract against the Petitioners. Further, there is no false document in the instant case, the offences under Sections 464 and 477 IPC also do not attract. Furthermore, as there is no treat of injury to the person, reputation or property of Respondent No.2, Section 506 IPC also does not attract against the Petitioners. As rightly put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, if the subject land was an assigned land at the time of the sale transaction, the registration of the documents would not have done. Furthermore, the allegations mentioned in the complaint would clearly show that the dispute is with regard to the saleable interest over a landed property, which is purely a civil dispute and the same is given the cloak of criminal offence. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is squarely applicable to the present set of facts. 10. Further, in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others5 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No.12 held as follows: “12. 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 5 (2013) 11 SCC 673 8 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 the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the above discussion and in view of the first guideline in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioners. 12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2318 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 198, 200, 406, 420, 464, 477 and 506 read with 34 IPC. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.01.2025 Dinesh 9 HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.7798 of 2022 Dated:02.01.2025 Dinesh