Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pagadala Satyanarayana Anr vs State Of A.P., Sho., Bapatla Anr on 28 February, 2022
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7157 OF 2013
ORDER:-
Heard Smt. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt. Deepika Gadde, learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.1/State.
2. The present Criminal Petition came to be filed, seeking quashing of all further proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, Guntur District. A Charge Sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 447, 352, 323 r/w. Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, "I.P.C."].
3. The allegations made in the Charge Sheet show that A.1 is a resident of Bapatla Town while A.2 is resident of Vedulapalli. L.W.1 is residing at D.No.12-4-4, Anjaneya Swamy temple street, Bapatla while L.W.2 is the younger sister of L.W.1. L.Ws.3 to 6 are neighbours, while L.Ws.7 to 9 are Engineering students, who are residing in a room next to the room of L.W.1.
(i) L.W.1 is said to be an old woman, having only one son. The house of L.W.1 belongs to her husband. After the demise of her husband, she fell in debts, and as such, she took a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from one Chamarthi Srinivasa 2 CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 Rao and his wife. L.W.1 and her son are said to have executed Attorney-cum-Sale Deed in favour of Ch. Srinivasa Rao and Kalyani in respect of her house to clear the debts.
(ii) The averments in the Charge Sheet further show that Srinivasa Rao and his wife sold the said house to A.1 without the knowledge of L.W.1. Since long time, L.W.1 is residing in the same house. While things stood thus, one Sai Babu, who is the son of first wife of L.W.1's husband, filed a Partition suit in O.S.No.119 of 2010 for a share in the said house, which is said to be pending before the Sub-Court, Bapatla.
(iii) On 19.12.2011 at about 3.00 P.M., A.1 and A.2 trespassed into the house of L.W.1, pushed L.W.1 out and then locked the house. It is said that A.1 and A.2 further trespassed into the room of L.Ws.7 to 9 and tried to occupy the same. L.Ws.3 to 6 are alleged to have gone there and witnessed the incident. In spite of the above incident, a case in Crime No.287 of 2011 was registered and the Police after investigation filed a Charge Sheet, for the offences, which are subject matter under challenge in the present Criminal Petition.
4. Smt. K. Sesha Rajyam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that even accepting the allegations to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioners. According to her, A.1 purchased the property and got the 3 CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 same mutated in his name and A.1 gave a report first, thereafter, as a counter blast, the present Crime came to be registered against him. She further contends that suits are filed between the parties in respect of the same property, and as such, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. In other words, her argument appears to be that a civil matter is being converted into a criminal matter at the behest of interested persons.
5. In spite of service of notice on respondent no.2, there is no representation on her behalf.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the same, contending that merely because some civil cases are pending between the parties, does not lead to an inference that the matter is purely civil in nature. According to him, the allegations in the Charge Sheet clearly make out offences punishable under Section 447, 352, 323 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C, and as such, he submits that there are no merits in the petition and the same may be rejected.
7. In R.K. Vijaysarathy vs. Sudha Seetharam1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice. In Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC (India) 1 (2019) 16 SCC 739 4 CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 Ltd, a two-Judge Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and formulated guiding principles in the following terms: (SCC p.748, para 12) "12. * * *
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence."
10. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether the averments in the compliant constitute the ingredients necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code. 5
CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the Penal Code."
8. Similarly, in M. Suresh and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"10.xxxx merely because a case involves a civil dispute does not by itself bar remedy under criminal law if a case is made out. At the same time, process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service merely for settling a civil dispute when no offence is committed."
9. As seen from the record, the averments in the Charge Sheet clearly disclose that A.1 purchased the property. O.S.No.119 of 2010 was filed by one Pelluri Venkata Sai Babu for partition of the plaint schedule property into six equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff according to the good and bad qualities and in the said suit, the respondent no.2 herein was also a party. Vide its judgment dated 30.12.2015, the Court dismissed the suit as not pressed.
10. Later, O.S.No.171 of 2012 came to be filed by one Pagadala Udaya Lakshmi, against the respondent no.2 herein in respect of the very same property and the said suit was filed to recover possession of the schedule property, by evicting the defendant i.e., respondent no.2 herein. Vide its 2 (2018) 15 SCC 273 6 CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 judgment dated 26.08.2016, the said suit was decreed directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from the date of decree. The said P. Udaya Lakshmi is none other than the wife of A.1. Before filing of the suit, the present crime came to be registered with a view to grab the property by giving a criminal colour to the issue and making allegations which do not attract the provisions of law. It appears from the record that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature pertaining to property disputes and possession, but the informant with a view to grab the property gave a criminal colour to the whole issue by making allegations, which are false and baseless.
11. Taking into consideration the facts in issue, and as the averments in the Charge Sheet itself show that A.1 is the owner of the said property, this Court feels that continuance of proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would be an abuse to process of law.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.290 of 2012 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bapatla, Guntur District. 7
CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 28.02.2022 MS 8 CPK,J Crl.P.No.7157 of 2013 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7157 of 2013 Date: 28.02.2022 MS