Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Dhanaraj vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 September, 2023
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.7460 of 2023
Order:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner herein/A1 to quash the proceedings in Crime
No.224 of 2023 of Tirupati Rural Police Station, Tirupati district.
2. A case has been registered against the petitioner herein and
others for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 506 read
with 34 IPC.
3. The allegations against the petitioner herein and other accused
are that, on 12.07.2023, at about 12.30 PM, the de facto complainant
went in a Car to Tirupati and at that juncture, the petitioner herein and
other accused assaulted him and grabbed the land documents and also
obtained his thumb impressions and signatures on some
documents/papers and threatened him with dire consequences. Later,
it is alleged that all the accused picked the de facto complainant in
their car and left him on the way to Madanapalli stating that unless he
gives an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- they would not return the
documents and they also warned to kill him if he informs the
occurrence to police. As the accused threatened the de facto
2
complainant with dire consequences, he did not give the complaint
immediately and he gave complaint on 18.07.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute is
purely civil in nature. According to him, the de facto complainant and
the petitioner herein have entered into an agreement on 18.04.2023
and, thereafter, after lapse of three months the present complaint has
been filed only with a view to overcome the said agreement and with a
mala fide intention.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits
that basing on the averments contained in the FIR, prima facie, there
are accusations against the accused and truth or otherwise of the said
accusations has to be gone into during the course of investigation and
since the investigation is at nascent stage, the proceedings cannot be
quashed.
6. Heard. Perused the material on record.
7. Going by the averments contained in the FIR, on the date of
incident i.e., on 12.07.2023, the petitioner herein, who is site broker,
called the de facto complainant stating that there is another party at
Tirupati and asked him to bring original documents. The de facto
complainant left Kadapa and reached Tirupati alone in a Car and he
3
called the petitioner herein on Cell phone No.9059575004 and
informed that he would come to Srinivasa Mangapuram temple.
Accordingly, the de facto complainant went to Srinivasa Mangapuram
temple and the petitioner herein got into his car there and said that it
would take two hours to reach the destination. The petitioner herein
further stated that there is another site elsewhere and took him to
Sattarbail TUDA venture near highway. At that point of time, the other
accused were present there. When the de facto complainant got out
of the Car to see the site, the petitioner herein and other accused
surrounded him, took his car keys and cell phone and beat him. The
accused are alleged to have taken the original and link documents of
the land from the de facto complainant by breaking a beer bottle and
threatening to kill him. It is also alleged that under the threat of
cutting the thumb of the de facto complainant, the accused took his
thumb impressions and signatures on some blank judicial stamp
papers, promissory notes and bond papers to be submitted to the
Court. The accused are alleged to have forced the de facto
complainant to sign on some judicial stamp papers and promissory
note bonds. They poured petrol on his thumb and washed it. It is also
alleged that the accused grabbed the PAN and Aadhar cards of the de
facto complainant and they took him in a car and left him at
Madanapally highway. Later, in the evening, it is alleged that the
4
petitioner herein called the de facto complainant and demanded
Rs.15,00,000/- for release of the original documents and threatened
him with dire consequences, if he gives complaint to police.
8. On a perusal of the FIR, prima facie, goes to show that specific
accusations have been attributed against the petitioner herein and
other accused. When such is the case, this Court would not be in a
position to go into the disputed questions of fact at this stage. The
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is
purely civil in nature cannot be accepted for the reason that the de
facto complainant was taken away by the accused in a Car to a
distance travelling for two hours under the guise of showing other
property. The accused are alleged to have beat the de facto
complainant and they made him to put his thumb impressions and sign
on some documents and they have taken away the original and link
documents from the de facto complainant and demanded
Rs.15,00,000/- for return of the original documents. They also
threatened to kill the de facto complainant, if he complains to the
police. Truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be gone into
only during the course of investigation and since the investigation is at
nascent stage, this Court, in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
5
would not be in a position to go into the disputed questions of fact at
this stage.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision
reported in Bhupinder Singh Kochar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.Criminal
Misc.Petition No.4005 of 2014, dated 18.06.2015, wherein it was
observed thus.
"So far as Section 384 is concerned, it was submitted
that for that an offence to be made out, it is to be shown
that the accused intentionally put any person in fear of
any injury to that person or to any other and thereby
dishonestly induced the person, so put in fear to deliver
to any person any property or valuable security or
anything signed and sealed which may be converted into
valuable security. According to learned counsel for the
petitioners for an offence of extortion as defined under
Section 383 IPC, the threat must preced delivery of
property and any subsequent threat in any manner is not
relevant for an offence to be made out under this
provision. In the present case it is not the case of the
complainant himself that any part of the sale
consideration was paid by him to the petitioners after he
was put under fear of any injury by the petitioners or
any of them. As per version made in the complaint at the
most it is shown that when the complainant demanded
from the petitioners to execute agreement to sell in
writing and issue receipt in respect of advance payment
made by him, he was threatened by the petitioners not
6
to act in haste otherwise neither the company and plot
would be transferred to him nor the amount already paid
by him would be refunded. He was further threatened by
the petitioners not to report the matter to police."
10. The facts in the above referred case, relied on by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, are not relevant to the facts of the present
case and they are entirely different and distinct. In the said decision, it
was observed that for an offence to be made out under Section 384
IPC it is to be shown that whoever intentionally puts any person in fear
of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly
induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property
or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be
converted into a valuable security commits extortion. In the present
case on hand, it is quite evident from the facts that emanates from the
FIR that the petitioner herein and other accused beat the de facto
complainant and made him to put his thumb impressions and sign on
certain documents by threatening him with dire consequences. In
such circumstances, it cannot be said that no offence under Section
384 IPC is made out. As the investigation is at nascent stage, truth or
otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided during the course
of investigation. At this stage, it cannot be said that the dispute is
purely civil in nature.
7
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
present complaint has been filed after lapse of three months from the
date of entering into an agreement between the de facto complainant
and petitioner herein only with a view to overcome the said agreement
and there is abnormal delay in giving the complaint. When an incident
of such nature has taken place, where the de facto complainant was
taken for a ride in a Car for about two hours to a remote place and all
the accused joining themselves together beat the de facto complainant
and made him to put his thumb impressions and sign on certain
documents and taken away the original and link documents from the
de facto complainant by threatening him with dire consequences, if he
gives complaint to the police, the de facto complainant would not be in
a position to go to the Police Station and give complaint immediately.
To that extent he gave explanation in the FIR itself stating that as he
was in shock he could not immediately approach the police to give
complaint. The delay in filing the complaint would not in any way a
ground to quash the entire proceedings at this stage. Even otherwise
also the offence under Section 384 IPC is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both. At the cost of repetition, the
accusations that have been mentioned in the FIR have to be
8
investigated and truth or otherwise of the same has to be culled out
during the course of investigation. This Court, in a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to conduct a roving
enquiry into the disputed questions of facts and quash the proceedings
at this stage. Since, prima facie, there are accusations against the
petitioner herein and other accused, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the proceedings.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any,
pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
________________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.
Date:29.09.2023 Nsr 9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.7460 of 2023 Date:29.09.2023 Nsr