c IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1806 of 2021 Between: 1. Jamili Amulya, W/o. Jamili Satish Kumar, Aged about 50 years, Occ; House wife, R/o. Flat No.302, Royal Oak Apartments Road No.25, Alkapoor Township, Manikonda Jagir, Hyderabad. 2. Jamili Satish Kumar, S/o. J. Subba Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ; Business, R/o. Flat No.302, Royal Oak Apartments Road No.25, Alkapoor Township, Manikonda Jagir, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Arnaravathi. ...Respondent 2. Md. Ali Azmathulla Pasha, S/o. Khader Mohiddin, Aged about 43 years R/o. Flat No.502, Sai Bhavani Mansion, 9*^ road, Shanti Nagar, Eluru, West Godavari District. ...Respondent/Defacto 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 may be pleased to quash the FIR No.346/2020 on the file of the III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. c I.A. NO: 1 OF 2021 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 rnpy be pleased to grant stay alt further proceedings in FIR No.346/2020 on the fite -of the III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District pending disposal of the criminal petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing tbe Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P B Narasimha Murthy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. on The Court made the following:ORDER 1 f APHC010117012021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1806/2021 Between: Jamili Amulya and another ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.PNAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.P B NARASIMHA MURTY 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.346 of 2020 on the file of III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the 2'^^ respondent is the defacto complainant. 2. 3. The brief facts of the complaint are that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 constructed the apartment by name ‘Sri Sai Bhavani Mansion’, in the said apartment, the defacto complainant purchased Flat No.502 for a sum of Rs.25,60,000/-. The defacto complainant paid Rs.3,00,000/- as advance and Rs.29,00,000/- through bank loan. Since the defacto complainant paid excess amount of Rs.6,40,000/-, the petitioners returned Rs.2,00,000/-, but however. failed to return the balance amount of Rs.4,40,000/-. The defacto complainant is doing sanitaryware business and the petitioners used to purchase sanitary items from the defacto complainant for the past 10 years and the petitioners became due of Rs.5,60,305/-. Therefore, the petitioners have to pay total amount of Rs.10,00,305/- (Rs.4,40,000/-+Rs.5,60,305/-) to the defacto complainant, but they prolonged the payment and ultimately refused to pay and threatenedthe defacto complainantwith dire consequences.Hence, the defacto complainant made a complaint before the III Town Police Station Eluru, and the same was Registered as Crime No.346/2020 against the petitioners herein. 3 On 23.03.2021, this Court passed the following interim order; 4. “....Hence, there shall be an interim stay of all further investigation including arrest of the petitioners in Crime No. 346 of 2020 of Eluru III Town Police Station, West Godavari District.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made 5. in the complaint are false. The accused is not due of any amount payable to the defacto complainant. The complaint does not disclose inducement or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to attract the ingredients under Section 420 IPC. The contents of the complaint clearly disclose that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The defacto complainant has to approach the competent civil Court for recovery of the amount in the alleged commercial transaction subject to limitation. But the defacto complainant instead of approaching the civil Court for recovery of the amount erroneously approached the police with a malafide intention to cause undue pressure on the petitioners. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint do not disclose the allegation of criminal intimidation and therefore, the ingredients under Section 506 IPC are not established. In these circumstances, the further investigation in the FIR against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, prays to allow the petition. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 and read with 34 IPC. 4 Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel 7. representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.346 of 2021 of III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 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 8. 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 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 purposefor 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. 5 9. 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: (i) Where institution/continuanceof 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 (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either 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 Sectipn 482. It is not, however, necessaryl that there should -fee a meticulous analysis of the case, before the no 10. AIR I960 sc 866 6 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 Kumai^ ” In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal^’’ the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High 11. Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the 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. ^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^1992 Supp(1)SCC 335 7 (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. 12. The offences alleged against the petitioners/accused in the present crime are under Sections 420 and 506(2) read with 34 of IPC. Section 420 I.P.C. reads as under: “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. ” Section 506 I.P.C. reads as under; 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.— Whoever commits, the’^e^ce of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprison-ment of either description for a t^rrrwhich may extend to two years, j or with fine, or with both;If threat be to cause deajk^or grievous hurt, etc.— 8 And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Now, it is to be examined whether the aforesaid offences would attract 13. in the present case, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint and prima facie material, if any, available on record. In the case on hand, the allegations against the petitioners are that they are liable to pay certain amounts to the defacto complainant and having postponed the payment, they ultimately refused to pay the due amounts and 14. threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Thus, it is evident that the dispute is with regard to payment of money allegedly due by the petitioners to the defacto complainant, which is essentially of a civil nature. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another"^ ” the 15. 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.” (2009) 8 see 751 9 In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others^” the Apex 16. Court held that, while exercising its jurisdiction u|nder 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 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 guash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. 17. As per the above decisions, when the complaint discloses civil transactions, this Court should see whether a dispute which is essentially of civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence and whether a civil remedy is available. In the case on hand, as noted above, the allegations would reveal that out of certain sale transactions, disputes arose between the defacto complainant and the petitioners/accused in relation to certain payments. In such circumstances, it cannot be brushed aside! that the present complaint is lodged to!pressurize the accused to settle the payment, by giving colour of 18. ^ (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 10 criminal offence to the civil dispute. Admittedly, there lies a civil remedy for recovery of amounts due, if any, to which a person is lawfully entitled. Having gone through the allegations levelled, it appears that the dispute is essentially of civil nature and the same has been given a cloak of criminal offence. In view of the same and since the dispute is purely civil in nature, this Court is of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein would amount to abuse of process of law. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.346 of 2020 on the file of III Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District, are hereby quashed. However, the defacto complainant is at liberty to initiate proceedings for refund of the amount, if any, payable by the petitioners herein, in accordance with law. 20. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. / Sd/-M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Station House Officer, ill Town Police Station, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi[OUT] 3. One CC to Sri P Nagendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P B Narasimha Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies TK ) HIGH COURT TK DATED:24/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1806 of 2021 W 0 7 JUL 2025 ; irront Pi ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION