Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Criminal Petition vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 September, 2023
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Petition No.2204 of 2022
Order:
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2, to quash the
proceedings in FIR No.97 of 2022 registered by the Station
House Officer, Jangareddigudem Police Station, West
Godavari, for the offences punishable under Sections 201,
409, 420, 467, 477-A 506 (2), 509, 120-B r/w 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.2
herein filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,
Jangareddigudem against the petitioners herein and two
others. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to
the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering FIR
and investigation. Hence the crime was registered.
3. The averments in the complaint given by the
respondent No.2 herein are that he owned Ac.20.00 cents
of land bearing Sy.No.7/1A situated in Taduvai Village,
which is his ancestral property. Similarly, another
Ac.20.00 cents of land bearing Sy.No.97/1 originally owned
2
by his grandfather by name Mummaneni Subbarao was
given to Mummaneni alias Kanuri Shobhana, who is the
granddaughter of Mummaneni Subbarao and she is none
else than sister of the complainant. While so, the
Government of the Andhra Pradesh initiated land
acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Polavaram
Irrigation Project and accordingly acquired the lands of the
complainant as well as his sister Shobhana. It is entire
extent of Ac.20.00 cents of each of them. The Land
Acquisition Officer i.e., the then Project Officer-cum R & R
Officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram, West Godavari District, who is
A4, in collusion with A1 to A3 passed Award only for
Ac.18.00 cents of land in favour of the complainant and so
similarly for Ac.18.00 cents of land in favour of Shobhana.
For the remaining extent of Ac.2.00 cents of land relating
to the complainant is concerned, an Award was passed in
favour of A2 for Rs.1,87,69,783/-. Similarly, for the left
over extent of Ac.2.74 cents in Sy.No.97/1, Award was
passed in favour of A1 for Rs.2,70,08,291/-. Further an
amount of Rs.1,66,30,649/- was transferred to the account
of A3 by A4. Thus, all the accused cheated the complainant
3
as well as his family members and also the Government. It
is also stated that all the accused entered into conspiracy
and transferred the said amounts to cheat him and also
misappropriated the Government money etc. Hence, the
complaint.
4. By an order, dated 06.4.2022, this Court granted
interim stay of all further proceedings in the above crime.
Thereafter, when the matter has come up for hearing, the
same was being adjourned from time to time for want of
the presence of the petitioners' counsel. Since the
petitioners' counsel did not represent the case, the same
was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' to 03.7.2023.
Even on that day also, the learned counsel for the
petitioners did not represent the case, hence this Criminal
Petition was dismissed for default for non-prosecution on
03.7.2023. Thereafter, Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned
Senior Counsel, represented the petitioners by filing a
memo to hear him. Since the dismissal order for non-
prosecution passed was not signed, and the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 did not object
4
for hearing the case, this Court proceeded to hear the case
finally.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners are the owners of
the land in Sy.No.7/1A to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents and
Sy.No.97/1 to an extent of Ac.2.74 cents of Taduvai
Village, Jangareddigudem Mandal and the said land was
acquired for providing house sites to the non-scheduled
tribes of Kukkunur and Velarpadu Mandal Villages, who
lost their properties under submergence of Polavaram
Irrigation Project. In connection with that, a preliminary
Notification under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was issued, and
an Award dated 18.2.2018 was passed and that the
compensation amount was paid through bank accounts to
the land owners. It is further submitted by the learned
senior counsel that even if the entire accusations are
accepted to be true, the dispute is purely civil in nature. It
is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the
respondent No.2 has not filed any objection before the
5
Land Acquisition Officer at the time of Award Inquiry. The
Land Acquisition Officer, after verifying the records and
also conducting enquiry, passed an Award in favour of the
petitioners. He further contended that there is a delay in
lodging the FIR which is fatal to the prosecution case.
Hence for all these reasons, he prays to quash the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners herein.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2
contended that the Special Deputy Collector (Land
Acquisition) issued proceedings to the effect that Section
84(2) of the Act 30 of 2013 states that any rehabilitation
and resettlement benefit availed of, by making a false claim
or through fraudulent means, by anyone, the same is liable
to be recovered by the appropriate Government. The
Special Deputy Collector in the proceedings stated that
proposals under R.R. Act will be sent to the District
Collector for recovery of compensation amount. On perusal
of the said proceedings dated 29.8.2022, it is quite evident
that money has been received by the petitioners herein
illegally by producing fake and fabricated documents. The
allegations in the private complaint make out a prima facie
6
case for the offences alleged and therefore, he prays to
dismiss the petition.
7. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor too
concurred with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 and further submitted
that there is absolutely no delay in lodging FIR since the
offences alleged are under Sections 409, 420 IPC and other
offences and as such the question of limitation would not
arise for the reason that punishment prescribed under the
aforesaid provision is up to imprisonment for life.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
9. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti
Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi1, wherein it is held,
"28. Having noted the provisions, it has to be
recapitulated that Section 67 clearly stipulates
punishment for publishing, transmitting obscene
materials in electronic form. The said provision
read with Section 67A and 67B is a complete
code relating to the offences that are covered
under the IT Act. Section 79, as has been
interpreted, is an exemption provision conferring
protection to the individuals. However, the said
protection has been expanded in the dictum of
1
(2017) 2 SCC 18
7
Shreya Singhal (supra) and we concur with the
same. Section 81 also specifically provides that
the provisions of the Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force. All provisions will have their
play and significance, if the alleged offence
pertains to offence of electronic record. It has to
be borne in mind that IT Act is a special
enactment. It has special provisions. Section
292 of the IPC makes offence sale of obscene
books, etc. but once the offence has a nexus or
connection with the electronic record the
protection and effect of Section 79 cannot be
ignored and negated. We are inclined to think so
as it is a special provision for a specific purpose
and the Act has to be given effect to so as to
make the protection effective and true to the
legislative intent. This is the mandate behind
Section 81 of the IT Act. The additional
protection granted by the IT Act would apply. In
this regard, we may refer to Sarwan Singh and
Anr. v. Kasturi Lal[14]. The Court was
considering Section 39 of Slum Areas
(Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 which
laid down that the provisions of the said Act
and the rules made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law. The Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 also contained non-
obstante clauses. Interpreting the same, the
Court held:- "When two or more laws operate in
the same field and each contains a non-
8
obstante clause stating that its provisions will
override those of any other law, stimulating and
incisive problems of interpretation arise. Since
statutory interpretation has no conventional
protocol, cases of such conflict have to be
decided in reference to the object and purpose of
the laws under consideration. A piquant
situation, like the one before us, arose in Shri
Ram Narain v. Simla Banking & Industrial Co.
Ltd.[15] the competing statutes being the
Banking Companies Act, 1949 as amended by
Act 52 of 1953, and the Displaced Persons (Debts
Adjustment) Act, 1951. Section 45-A of the
Banking Companies Act, which was introduced
by the amending Act of 1953, and Section 3 of
the Displaced Persons Act, 1951 contained each
a non-obstante clause, providing that certain
provisions would have effect "notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in
any other law for the time being in force ...".
This Court resolved the conflict by considering
the object and purpose of the two laws and
giving precedence to the Banking Companies Act
by observing:
"It is, therefore, desirable to determine the
overriding effect of one or the other of the
relevant provisions in these two Acts, in a given
case, on much broader considerations of the
purpose and policy underlying the two Acts and
the clear intendment conveyed by the language
of the relevant provisions therein" (p. 615)
As indicated by us, the special and specific
purpose which motivated the enactment of
9
Section 14-A and Chapter III-A of the Delhi Rent
Act would be wholly frustrated if the provisions
of the Slum Clearance Act requiring permission
of the competent authority were to prevail over
them. Therefore, the newly introduced provisions
of the Delhi Rent Act must hold the field and be
given full effect despite anything to the contrary
contained in the Slum Clearance Act.
32. The aforesaid passage clearly shows that if
legislative intendment is discernible that a
latter enactment shall prevail, the same is to be
interpreted in accord with the said intention. We
have already referred to the scheme of the IT Act
and how obscenity pertaining to electronic
record falls under the scheme of the Act. We
have also referred to Sections 79 and 81 of the
IT Act. Once the special provisions having the
overriding effect do cover a criminal act and the
offender, he gets out of the net of the IPC and in
this case, Section 292. It is apt to note here that
electronic forms of transmission is covered by
the IT Act, which is a special law. It is settled
position in law that a special law shall prevail
over the general and prior laws. When the Act in
various provisions deals with obscenity in
electronic form, it covers the offence under
Section 292 IPC."
10. He further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs.
Ch.Bhajan Lal and others, 2wherein it is held
2
1992 AIR 694
10
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation 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 prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2)...
(3)...
(4)...
(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."
11
(6)....
11. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Vinod Natesan Vs. State of Kerala
and others3, wherein it is held,
"Having heard the appellant as party in person
and the learned Advocates appearing on behalf
of the original accused as well as the State of
Kerala and considering the judgment and order
passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion
that the learned High Court has not committed
any error in quashing the criminal proceedings
initiated by the complainant. Even considering
the allegations and averments made in the FIR
and the case on behalf of the Appellant, it
cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections
406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute
between the parties at the most can be said to be
the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted
into the criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also
of the opinion that continuing the criminal
proceedings against the Accused will be an
abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High
Court has rightly quashed the criminal
proceedings. Merely because the original
accused might not have paid the amount due
and payable under the agreement or might not
have paid the amount in lieu of one month
Notice before terminating the agreement by itself
cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having
committed offence under Sections 406 and 420
3
(2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 401
12
of the IPC as alleged. We are in complete
agreement with the view taken by the High
Court."
12. All the decisions relied upon by the learned
Senior Counsel are to the effect that if the ingredients of
the offences alleged are not made out, basing on the
accusations contained in the First Information Report, the
proceedings can be quashed. Hence, it is necessary to look
into the facts of the present case, whether any prima facie
case for the offences alleged is made out from the
allegations in the complaint given by the respondent No.2.
13. On perusal of the complaint herein, it goes to
show that one Mummaneni Subbarao (late) owned an
extent Ac.60.00 cents of land. He gave the same to his two
sons and daughter by name Vijay Kumar, Vinay Kumar
and Papa equally and kept in his name an extent of
admeasuring Ac.2.74 cents in R.S.No.97/1 in Taduvai
Village. Vijay Kumar got married and had two daughters
namely Papa and Kanuri Shobhana and a son namely
Mummaneni Poorna Venkata Krishna Prasad. Vijay Kumar
gave Ac.18.00 cents of land out of ancestral property
devolved upon him, to his second daughter, an extent of
13
Ac.20.00 cents of land to his son by name Mummaneni
Poorna Venkata Krishna Prasad and an extent of Ac.20.00
cents of land to his another daughter by name Papa.
Mummaneni @ Kanuri Shobhana got the land devolved
upon her from her father Vijay Kumar under a registered
document No.3513/2010 in Jangareddigudem SRO and
also obtained Pattadar passbook in E.No.518775 with
patta No.1223. It falls in R.S.No.9 admeasuring an extent
of Ac.18.00 cents of Taduvai Village of Jangareddigudem
Mandal. Mummaneni Poorna Venkata Krishna Prasad got
Ac.20.00 cents of land vide document No.3515/2010 in
R.S.No.7/1A of Taduvai Village. It is submitted that A3
Mummaneni Nagabushana Chowdary is a distant relative
of the complainant. A1 and A2 were introduced by A3 to
the father of the complainant and made him to agree as
that his son Mummaneni Poorna Venkata Krishna Prasad
(the respondent No.2) who is doing job at USA and
Mummaneni Vijay Kumar aged about 72 years is suffering
from old-age ailments, to execute a sale cum GPA pertains
to one house site and a dilapidated cinema theatre, by way
of two documents executed by Mummaneni Poorna
14
Venkata Krishna Prasad so to look after for sale of the
supra properties since he is residing in USA.
14. The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired
lands for the purpose of Polavaram Irrigation Project,
including the properties in Taduvai Village of
Jangareddigudem Mandal, which include the lands of the
complainant. In that connection, Award was passed by the
R & R Officer-cum-Project Officer, ITDA, K.R.Puram, West
Godavari District, who is A4. A4, in collusion with A1 to
A3, by receiving illegal gratification, paid compensation
only for an extent of Ac.18.00 cents of land in favour of the
complainant and deposited it into the account of the
complainant. In respect of the remaining Ac.2.00 cents of
land the compensation amount was not paid. In connection
with this Ac.2.00 cents of land, A4 showing the excess land
of Ac.2.74 cents in R.S.No.7-1A and R.S.No.97/1 and
transferred an amount of Rs.2,70,08,291/- with active
collusion of A1 to A3 and transferred an amount of
Rs.1,66,30,649/- to A3 account and thus all of them
cheated the complainant and his family members as well
as the Government. All the accused together conspired and
15
transferred the said amount by breaching the trust reposed
in them, by the complainant and thereby committed
criminal breach of trust and the same has been done
behind the back of the complainant.
15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submits that, though an order has been
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the complainant
resorted in filing the present complaint with malafide
intention. No doubt the respondent No.2 has not filed
objection before the Land Acquisition Officer at the time of
Award enquiry. The Land Acquisition Officer, after verifying
the records and also conducting enquiry, passed Award in
favour of the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the
complainant could not participate in the enquiry for the
reason that he was not aware that such enquiry was being
conducted as he is a resident of USA. He reposed trust in
the petitioners herein, who promised to manage the affairs
of the land belonging to him. The complainant previously
filed W.P.No.2420 of 2022 before this Court stating that the
Government acquired Ac.20.00 cents of land in
R.S.No.7/1A of Taduvai Village, but the Award was passed
16
and compensation was paid only for Ac.18.00 of land and
to direct the respondent authorities to pay compensation to
the petitioner for the remaining land of Ac.2.00 in
R.S.No.7/1A of Taduvai Village. By an order, dated
2.2.2022, this Court directed the petitioner to file a
representation and the authorities to take appropriate
action strictly in accordance with law, by passing a
speaking order within a period of six weeks. Accordingly,
the complainant filed a representation before the
respondent authorities on 26.2.2022 stating that he is the
owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.20.00 cents in
R.S.No. 7 of Taduvai Village, but an Award has been
passed only to an extent of Ac.18.00 cents and requested
to pay the compensation amount for the remaining land of
Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.7 of Taduvai Village. The father of
the complainant attended the enquiry on 06.4.2022 and
stated that a General Power of Attorney was executed in
his favour. During the course of enquiry, it has come to
light that the petitioners herein managed the then Land
Acquisition Officer and got the compensation fraudulently.
In fact, the complainant is entitled to get the
17
compensation. On coming to know of the same about the
illegal act committed by the petitioners herein, the de facto
complainant filed complaint on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem against the
petitioners herein, which was forwarded under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police. Upon receipt of the same, the
police registered the present FIR.
16. On perusal of the order passed by the Special
Deputy Collector, dated 29.8.2022, it goes to show that the
Award in Form-IX was passed in the year 2018. As per the
order passed by the then Land Acquisition Officer an
amount of Rs.4,56,88,815/- was paid to the petitioners
herein as compensation. According to the Special Deputy
Collector on verification of records, the petitioners are not
the persons notified as pattadars in the Draft Declaration
issued by the then Land Acquisition Officer. Prima facie
basing on the accusations and the order passed by the
Special Deputy Collector, there appears a prima facie case.
The petitioners though not the pattadars of the land in
Sy.No.7 of Taduvai Village, they in collusion with other
accused, appear to have created fake and forged
18
documents and impersonated before the authorities and
thereafter claimed the compensation amount with malafide
intention. It is further observed that on 05.8.2022 the
Special Deputy Collector and his team inspected the land
in R.S.No.7/1A in the presence of the respondent No.2. The
said team found that the petitioners did not possess the
land to an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in R.S.No.7/1A of
Taduvai Village. The petitioners herein had falsely stalled
the investigation. This Court is of the view that prima facie
basing on the accusations contained in the First
Information Report, it is necessary that the Investigating
Agency has to conduct a fair investigation and submit
report.
17. A perusal of the order passed by the Special
Deputy Collector clearly shows that the petitioners were
never in possession of the said land and they were never
pattadars of R.S.No.7/1A of Taduvai Village. The case
needs thorough investigation by the police. At this stage of
FIR, this Court cannot quash the proceedings, more so
when prima facie accusation has been made out as against
the petitioners herein. The investigation is at nascent
19
stage. When a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, it
is the statutory duty of the police to register a case and
conduct investigation. It cannot be curtailed. Truth or
otherwise of the said allegations has to be established in
the course of trial. The defences, whatever available can be
put forth by the petitioners before the trial Court during
the course of trial. This Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
would not be in a position to appreciate the facts by
adopting a roving enquiry.
18. 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:06.09.2023 GR 20 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2204 of 2022 Date: 06.09.2023 GR