J IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY JHE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 6247 OF 2021 Between: V. Dasaratha Naidu, aged 50 yrs S/o Late Muniswamy Naidu r/o D.No. 196/1, New Balaji Colony M.R.Palli, S.V.University Tirupathi Urban, Chittoor District-517502 ...Petitioner/Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. ...Respondent/Complainant 2. K.Lakshmi Devi, aged 54 yrs W/o K.Bhaskar Reddy, R/o D.No. 1-168 Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanur Road, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor 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.492 of 2021 of Tirachanur P.S. against the petitioners/accused and pass any other or further order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. I.A. NO: 2 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 may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused FIR.No. 492 of 2021 of Tirachanur P.S. and pass any other or further order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K Koutilya, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and M/s. V. Sudha Rani, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following ORDER: . \ 'ti 1 X VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 APHC010433672021 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: 6247/2021 Between; V.dasaratha Naidu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused; 1.KKOUT1LYA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant{S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2.RSUDHARANI 2 VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 The Court made the following Order: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C) by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.492 of 2021 dated 03.09.2021 on the file of Tirchanur Police Station, Tirupathi Urban, Tirupathi District for the offences registered under Sections 417, 420 IPC r/w 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner herein is the accused and the 2^^^ respondent 2. herein the de-facto complainant. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows; The 2^"^ respondent filed a private complaint before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate of Tirupathi, alleging that the petitioner, claiming to be the Chairman of the Company, S.G.S Flousing Pvt.Ltd and is carrying on the business of selling the approved layouts, offered to sell four plots with Plot No.58, 59, 107 and 108 in Sy.No.150, 150/IB, 150/1C and 150/IF in Balaji Garden Layout and agreeing with the same, the de-facto compiainant/2^'^ respondent has entered into an agreement of sale on 03.09.2013 with the petitioner/accused and paid the entire sale consideration. As per agreement, the VS,J Cfl.P.No.6247 of 2021 petitioner/accused has to purchase some of the land for obtaining final approval and also to get the final registrations from the Inspite of lapse of seven years, there is no original owners, progress and improvement and there is no proper response from the petitioner. Further, the petitioner by printing brochures and with imaginary images, misguided the 2'^'^ respondent and willfully cheated the de-facto complainant by playing fraud without having authority and requested to take action against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate referred the said private complaint under 156(3) Cr.P.C to the Tirchanur Police Station, Tirupathi for investigation. Basing on the same, the police registered the of 2021 for the offences punishable any Section Cr.No.492 420 IPC r/w 156 (3) Cr.P.C for investigation, the present criminal petition is filed to quash the said Cr.No.492 of case in U/Secs.417 2021. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in the alleged crime. The allegations made in the complaint are very vague and illusionary as no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner, submits that the allegations of the complaint and contents of the FIR, if it were taken to be true, do not allege or 4. The Fie further 4 VS.J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 infer that the petitioner has committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. Further, the allegations in the complaint are purely civil in nature and it is settled law that when a civil dispute is pending between the two parties, the question of subsequently preferring criminal proceedings and seeking penal action is not sustainable under law. Hence, the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted 5. that the allegations leveled in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 IPC read with 156(3) Cr.P.C against the petitioner and that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioner. The truth or otherwise of which would be determined by a competent criminal court after full-fledged trial and this Court, by exercising the jurisdiction Under Section 482 Cr.P.C, cannot decide the same and hence. he prays for dismissal of the criminal petition. 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 6. follows; 5 VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 “Whether the proceedings in FIR No.492 of 2021 on the file of Tirchanur Police Station, Tirupathi Urban, Tirupathi is liable to be quashed against the petitioner by exercising jurisdiction 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 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. 8 6 6 VSJ Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 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/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 (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 ^ AIR 1960 sc 866 7 I VS, J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 ise of the inherent powers under that there should be a to quash the same in exercise Section 482. It is not, however, necessary meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out not. The complaint consideration of the whether the case would end in conviction or has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a oath of the allegations, in the light of the statement on of the offence/offences are material to show that the complaint is complainant that ingredients disclosed, and there is no mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no interference by the High Court as held by the Apex justification for Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumai^ 2 In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lai considered in detail the powers of the Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex summarized the legal position by laying down the following exercise of their the Apex Court of High Court under Section 482 Court be followed by High Courts in guidelines to inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report 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. or 2 AIR 1990 SC 494 3 1992 Supp (1) see 335 12 8 ^S,J ^rl.P.No.6247 of 2021 (2) Where 'Materials, if cognizable offence i Section W'ithin the fhe allegations i any, other -conipa„;i4''=,'f';;i»™a,l„n WcWyingani„„es|iga,i„„ 'R Oo not disclose a - Code excepi o„der an orde ™ 155(2, Of,he Code ate collected f'SJlpor, --e a„^ r?;3e '■®Port and ^^6(1) of tfie ‘ Porviewof Secti (3) Where the evidence commission accused. the or complaint and cot disclose the - against the of (4) Where the cognizable offence '^'^estigation is 'Magistrate allegations i “o'omplateddnderi^f'^i FIR do 'a non- but not cognizable offencTno as (5) Where the ' and : person , ground for over react, a just con I “'I'ch ‘'^“Odingagainstthe "i^' <5ere is SO absurd prudent sufficient are no the or ® ' toe provisions of the criminal - IS an Code express legal bar p Code or the conr t^Oere there is a soa t t^°ntinuance of c::sr,::: (7) Where 0 criminal "late fide and/or «here "t'tenor motive for '"ew to spite him PWeeTngV ma|t™'““^ leaking uengeance on the a'te:"""'' ' Prudge. the with with and with a due to private and personal ^^Gping j view the principles, | examine the would like to case on hand. 8. A thorough reading of the that the 2 “nients of the private '''lould show complaint complainant has petitioner as per the and that after nd respondent/de-facto entered into agreed to sell the agreement, the an agreement by believin9 the Words of the land offered petitioner has by the petitioner and P^'-'=l'ase the land to I i 9 VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 obtaining final approval from the authorities, regular sale deed will be executed. Inspite of lapse of seven years, as there is no progress and improvement from the petitioner, and the petitioner nd did not respond properly, having no other option, the 2 respondent lodged the private complaint converting the civil dispute into criminal, which cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various Judgments. 9. In ‘‘Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another‘s ” 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.” 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. 10. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to (2009) 8 see 751 ^ (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673 % 10 VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 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 disclosino 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 dyil 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 Pradesh^’’ 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 only allegation against the petitioner is that believing the words of the petitioner, the 2""^ respondent agreed to purchase the land from the petitioner i.e.. Plot No.58, 59, 107 and 108 in Sy.No.150, 150/IB, 150/1C and 150/IF in ® (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679 11 VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 Balaji Garden Layout, as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has to purchase some land and after final approval of TUDA authorities, a regular sale deeds will be executed and having lapse of seven years, there is no progress and improvement and that the petitioner did not respond to the same. Therefore, it can be said that the dispute is civil in nature and the same has been given colour of a criminal offence. However, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with a dire intention to settle the dispute. Even if the allegations of the private complaint are taken into consideration, one cannot presume that the petitioner/accused had committed the alleged offence. Since the dispute is civil in nature, this Court is of the considered view that the Criminal Proceedings ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in civil suit. 13. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the present dispute is civil in nature and a purely civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreack vengeance against the petitioners/accused or to pressurize him to settle the civil dispute, as such continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to 12 VS,J Crl.P.No.6247 of 2021 abuse of process of court. Therefore, this criminal petition deserves to the allowed. 15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in FIR No.492 of 2021 on the file of Tirachanur Police Station, Tirupathi Urban against the petitioner/accused herein, are hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To. 1. The Station House Officer, Tirachanur P.S., Chittoor District. One CC to Sri K Koutilya, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to M/s. V. Sudha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. sree HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 ORDER CRLP.No.6247 of 2021 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION