IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8681 of 2022 Between: Vedulapalli Satyananda Kumar, S/o. Sri Mohana Rao, Hindu, Age 67 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. House No. 10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyala Tippa, Yanam - 533 464, Puducherry U.T. ...Petitioner/A-1 AND 1. State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Amaravathi through its SHO, II Town L and O PS, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. Velagandula Anandam, S/o Late Sri Sankarayya, R/o. Door No. 1-1- 1652/B, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 080. ...Respondents/De-facto Complainant Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to call for the records relating to CC No. 853 of 2022 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada and quash the same against the petitioner/A-1. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in CC No. 853 of 2022 on the file of the court of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, pending disposal of the present criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri J Azad Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: APHC010007332020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8681/2022 Between: Vedulapalli Satyananda Kumar, S/o.V.S.R.Mohana Rao, Hindu, Aged 87 years. Business, R/o.House No. 10-454, Adivipalem, Dariyala Tippa, Yanam, Puducherry U.T. AND State of A.P., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Amaravati through its SHO, II Town L&O P.S., Kakinada, E.G.District. Velagandula Anandam, S/o.Late Sri Sankarayya, R/o.D.No.1-1-1652/B Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNo.1 1. 2. ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/comp!ainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. J. AZAD CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973^ has been filed by the Petitiorier/Accused No.1, seeking quashment of for short ‘Cr.P.C r-- proceedings against him in C.C.No.853 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860^. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No. 1/State and Sri J.Azad Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for Respondent 2. No.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the allegations made in the complaint are false. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner herein had purchased the said flat much prior to the marriage of her daughter with the son of Respondent No.2. It is submitted that, at no point of time, the Petitioner promised to purchase the flat in the name of the son of Respondent No.2. The said flat was purchased with the money of Accused No.2 and it was registered in her name. Learned counsel would further submit that. Respondent No.2 also filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada for declaration of title and recovery of possession against Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein and the same is pending. It is submitted that, during pendency of the said suit, the present complaint is filed. The entire dispute is of civil nature. Learned counsel would finally submit that, in such circumstances, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of ,process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the same. 3. 2 for short ‘IPC’ 3 Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that Accused No.2, who is the daughter of Petitioner/Accused No.1 was given in 4. marriage to the son of Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would further submit that, after the marriage, Accused Nos.1 and 2 induced the son of Respondent No.2 to invest money to purchase a flat in his name and believing the said words, the son of Respondent No.2 transferred a total amount of Rs.47,09,678/- to the HDFC bank accounts of Accused Nos.1 and 2. Having received the said amount, and by misappropriating the said amount. Accused Nos.1 and 2 purchased the flat in the name of Accused No.2 and intentionally omitted to get it registered in the name of the son of Respondent No.2 and thereby committed cheating and criminal conspiracy. Learned counsel would further submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences and truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be revealed during trial. Therefore, at this stage, the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of the 5. learned counsel for Respondent No.2 A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages 6. 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 court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and powers to circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; some “102. In the backdrop of the interpnetation 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 prime 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 AIR 1992 sc 604 5 (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 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 arid 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) Respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint against Accused Nos.1 8. and 2 alleging that, the marriage of Accused No.2 with the son of Respondent No.2 was performed in the year 2011 at United States of America. Accused No.1 performed the said marriage by suppressing the fact of first marriage and divorce of Accused No.2. While so, in the year 2011, Petitioner/Accused No.1 made a proposal to the son of Respondent No.2 to by a flat in Sai Sriram 'f 6 Residency situated at Atchyutaramaiah Street, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada and both Accused Nos.1 and 2 made false representations to the son of Respondent No.2 that they would purchase the flat in his name and having believed their words, the son of Respondent No.2 had transferred a total amount of Rs.42,00,000/- on different spells to the HDFC bank account of Petitioner/Accused No.1. However, Accused Nos.1 and 2 got the said flat registered in the name of Accused ■No.2 with a fraudulent intention to cause loss to the son of Respondent No.2 and thereby committed the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B read with 34 of IPC. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that, admittedly, the marriage of Accused No.2 with the son of Respondent No.2 had taken place on 12.02.2011. Further, in view of the disputes between the In view of the said 9. couple, they obtained divorce in USA on 18.10.2022. disputes. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against Petitioner/Accused No.1, Accused No.2 and the wife of Accused No.1 herein, which was registered as a case in Crime No.218 of 2020 on the file of II Town L&O Police Station, Kakinada. Police, after investigation, filed charge sheet therein, which was numbered as C.C.No.851 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada. Aggrieved thereby, Accused No.1 herein and his wife filed Crl.P.No.8673 of 2022 seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.851 of 2022. The material further shows that, some other cases were also filed by Respondent No.2 against Accused Nos.1 and 2 7 herein and criminal petitions were also filed by the Accused before this Court seeking quashment of the said cases. 10. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he purchased the subject property with the funds of Accused No.-2, and hence, the same was also registered in her name vide Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.3492 of 2013, dated 26.03.2013 i.e., much prior to lodging of the present complaint. With regard to the said property, the son of Respondent No.2 also filed O.S.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada for declaration of title and for mandatory injunction and the said suit is pending consideration. 11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Another Vs. State of Kerala & Others^, wherein, it was held as follows: • “It is true that a given set effects may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when It is found to be malafide or othenvise an abuse of the process of the court. The Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings. ” " (2015) 8 see 293 8 In Medmeme, LLC and Others Vs. IHORSE BPO Solutions Private 12. Limited®, the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as follows; “After going through the allegations contained in the complaint and the material on record, we are of firm conclusion that the matter entirely pertains to civil jurisdiction and not even a prima facie case is made out for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409 read with Section 120B of IPC even if the allegations contained in the complaint are to be taken on their face value. The complaint gives a clear Impression that it was primarily a case where the respondent had alleged breach of contract on the part of the appellants in not making the entire payments for the services rendered to the appellants. On the other hand, it is i not in dispute that substantial amounts have been paid by the ^appellants to the respondent- company for the services rendered. Reason for non-payment of the balance amount as given by the appellants is that the services rendered by the respondent-company were not in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and were deficient in nature. For this reason, even the appellants have filed claims against the respondent-company alleging that appellant suffered losses because of the defective services provided by the respondent. On the basis of it, we find that it cannot be said that at the time of entering into the agreement, either the first agreement or even the second agreement, there was any intention on the part of the appellants to cheat the respondent. Nb suspicion of any nature was shown or even alleged. It is also not the allegation of the respondent In the complaint that the agreement Was entered into with fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the appellants in inducing the respondent to enter into such a contract. At best, the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature, proceedings in respect of which are pending before the learned Arbitrator. We, thus, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and thereby allow the petition filed by the appellants in the High Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure ” The allegations mentioned in the complaint would clearly show that the 13. dispute is with regard to the title over the subject property, which is purely a civil dispute and the same is given the cloak of criminal offence. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the judgments referred to ^ (2018) 13 see 374 / ♦ 9 supra, this Court is of the view that there are no ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the Petitioner. In absence of any specific allegations against the Petitioner, the criminal liability cannot be fastened on him and continuation of such proceedings against him is an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.1 in C.C.No.853 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. SURYANADHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2. The Ration House Officer, II Town L and O Police Station, Kakinada East Godavari District. 3. Two CCs ot the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] 4. One CC to Sri N Siva Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri J Azad Chandra Sekhar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies To TK HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.8681 of 2022 S 15 MAY a® •©I m Co, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION