IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY h. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3493 OF 2020 Between: 1. Nossam Bala Venkata Rama Subba Reddy, S/o N. Chinna Subbi Reddy, Aged 68 years, Male, Occ Business. R/o Plot No.406, Sreenivasam Apartments, Chemmumiyapeta, Kadapa City. 2. Nossam Praveen Kumar Reddy., S/o. N. Bala Venkata Rama Subba Reddy, Aged 33, R/o Plot No.406, Sreenivasam Apartments, Chemmumiyapeta, Kadapa City. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 &2 AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Station House Officer. RIMS P.S Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of AP. Amaravati. • > 2. Nandimandalam Subbareddy, S/o Late Bala Subbareddy, Aged 58 years, Rio SRVS Industries, B-8, Co-operative Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS t .. 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 quash the proceedings against the petitioners in F.I.R No. 158 of 2020, on the file of RIMS Police Station, YSR Kadapa District and pass I.A. NO: 2 OF 2020 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 stay all further proceedings, including the arrest of the petitioner, in FIR No. 158 of 2020, on the file of RIMS Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the petition for quashing This Petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition arid upon hearing the arguments of Sri Malireddy Gowtham, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: 1 VS,J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 APHC010232992020 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: 3493/2020 Between: Nossam Bala Venkata Rama Subba Reddy, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.MALIREDDY GOWTHAM Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2.D KODANDARAMI REDDY ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) 2 -% VS,J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3493/2020 The Court made the following Order: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Cr.No.158 of 2020 on the file of RIMS police Station, YSR Kadapa District. The facts of the present criminal petition are that the 2'"'^ respondent lodged a complaint on 20.07.2020 before the police alleging that the 2^^ respondent advanced amounts on various occasions for a sum of Rs.25,02,878/- towards investment for Praveen Paper Board Industries, out of which the 1®* petitioner made a hand written entry in the Khata book for an amount of 2. Rs.42,19,8500/-, and a partnership agreement dated 18.04.2011 was also executed to that effect. The business and the books were maintained by the petitioners and when the 2"^^ respondent enquired about the profits and records of the business during March of every year, the petitioners replied that everything was perfect. It was alleged that the 2^"^ respondent fell ill during April 2017 and later when he questioned the petitioners about the 3 VS, J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 records to quantify his share, to which the petitioners did not give any reply with an intention to escape and it was alleged that the 2^^ respondent did not have any right in the business. He further alleged that on 07.07.2020, the 2^^ respondent went to the factory to ask for the records, the petitioners locked the gates to refrain the 2"^^ respondent from entering the premises and threatened with dire consequences. It is further alleged that the petitioners are holding the factory and the business records and not allowing the 2'"'' respondent to go through the factory records and utilized the money of the 2'^^ respondent for their personal use and cheated the 2"^^ respondent. Basing on the said complaint, the present crime has been registered. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences with which they are charged. There is a delay of 13 days in lodging the complaint from the date of alleged incident that occurred on 07.07.2020. The 2'''^ respondent lodged a complaint on 20.07.2020. The lodging of present complaint is a counter blast to the suit in I 4 VS, J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 O.S.No.300 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Kadapa seeking for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner against the 2'"'^ respondent which is pending consideration. The respondent in filing the complaint is an act of nd act of 2 vengeance and concocted only for the purpose of harassing the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are nothing to do with the offence with which they are charged. The issue involved in the present case is purely civil in nature and filing a criminal case is nothing but abuse of process of court. Hence, requested to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners. On the other hand the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor 5. contended that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners, and the truth or otherwise of the allegations attributed against the petitioners and the issue involved herein is misappropriation of funds which would be determined in a full- fledged trial by competent court, since the offence alleged herein is grievous in nature and there are no valid grounds to interfere and quash the proceedings at this stage, and he sought for dismissal of the criminal petition 5 VSJ Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 6. Having heard the submissions counsel for the parties and made by the learned on perusal of the material available record, the point that arises for consideration is: on ’Whether the proceedings initiated petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No.158 of 2020 of RIMS Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, against the on the file are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C High Court to make such orders effect to any order under the Code process of any Court or otherwise to saves the inherent powers of the may be necessary to give or to prevent abuse of the as 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 wouid 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 serve the purpose for which administration of law would fail to alone the Court exists, namely to injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C promote justice and to prevent confers no new powers but 'i 6 VS,J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 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 Punjab^ ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles: 9. “(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 ofjustice; (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; (HI) 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. ” Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of 10. MR 1960 SC 866 7 VSJ Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 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 4 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 Kumar^ ” 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 8 VSJ Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 The allegation of the 2'"'^ respondent against the petitioners herein is that the 2"^^ respondent advanced amounts on various occasions between 12.10.2009 to 13.11.2010 totaling to a sum of Rs.52,02,878/- towards investment for Praveen Paper Board Industries, for which 1®' Petitioner made handwritten entries in the katha book for an amount of Rs.42,19,500/-, and executed a partnership agreement dated 18.04.2011 to that effect. It is not in dispute that the business entry books are being maintained by the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 07.07.2014 when the 2""' respondent went to the factory for the purpose of verifying the records and amounts, he was restrained from entering the premises on the ground that he did not have any right in the business and has no right to verify the records and threatened him with dire consequences which fact discloses that the dispute involved in the present case is purely civil in 12. nature. In 'Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and another^ ' 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 13. ^ (2009) 8 see 751 9 VSJ Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 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.” In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others^” 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. 14. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged bv the High 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. (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 10 VS,J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 A perusal of the material available on record would show that it is evident that the 1®* petitioner/accused No.1 is a sole 15. proprietor of Praveen Paper Board Industries and carrying on business as such in the third week of June 2020, when the 2"'^ respondent/de-facto complainant started propaganding in that he will dispossess the petitioners from the firm, the 1®‘ petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.300 of 2020 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking permanent injunction against the 2 respondent/de-facto complainant. It is the contention of the nd petitioner that the partnership agreement was executed on 18.4.2011 between himself and the 1®* petitioner. Infact, it is evident that the land in which the firm is situated was purchased by the petitioner in the capacity of proprietorship of Praveen Paper Board Industries from Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation for a sale consideration of Rs.8,86,600/- and deed of sale was also executed to that effect in favour of the 1®^ petitioner. It is no doubt that the partnership deed executed between the parties is an unregistered instrument and no case was filed by the 2"'^ respondent/de-facto complainant for enforcement of partnership deed which is unregistered. Even if such partnership agreement is existing the remedy available to i 11 vs, J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 the 2"'"^ respondent is exclusively civil in nature and he has to proceed against the petitioners by way of civil proceedings but not lodging a criminal proceedings under Section 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC which is completely an abuse of process of law. In the light of the case stated above, the partnership deed is said to have taken place way back in the year 2011 and no disputes arose till 2020. One fine morning, it was alleged that no profits were gained under the alleged partnership agreement and when questioned the same he was threatened with dire consequences. No prudent person will ever accept this theory. It is manifestly clear that the story of threat is fabricated one to add criminal colour to a civil liability. For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. 16. In the absence of intentional deception on the part of the petitioners/accused right from the beginning, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Filing of complaint without prima facie material that the petitioners beginning ^of^ had dishonest intention at the e transaction is 12 1% VS, J Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 abuse of process of Court. Further, the prime requirement to constitute offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is that the petitioners must have dishonest intention to induce the de-facto complainant to part with property at the initial stage. If there is any allegation in the complaint to that effect, the question of adducing evidence and drawing inference would arise, but in the absence of such allegation, proceeding against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is abuse of process of Court. 17. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case i and in the light of the facts stated above, this Court is of the \ considered view that a plain reading of the FIR and the contents of the complaint would show that the necessary ingredients of the FIR under Section 420, 406,506 r/w 34 IPC are not made out and neither the allegations of deception practiced by the petitioners nor fraudulent or dishonest inducement made by them is alleged at the time when the 2'"'^ respondent lent the money to the petitioners. The present criminal proceedings are being initiated just to harass and pressurize the petitioner in the case going on between them and the same is misuse^ process of law and 13 VSJ Crl.P.No.3493 of 2020 cannot be allowed to remain. Hence this is a fit case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners, criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 in Crime No. 158 of 2020 on the file of RIMS Police District, are hereby quashed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if shall stand closed. Accordingly, the Station, Kadapa any Sd/- K SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / SECTION OFFICER / To, ' » 1. The Station House Officer, RIMS Police Station, YSR 2. One CC to Sri Malireddy Gowtham Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D Kodanda Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies Kadapa District HIGH COURT \ DATED: 17/02/2025 ORDER ANDS^ CRLP.No.3493 of 2020 ^ ?nJUN 2025 m ALLOWING THE CRLP