Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pilla Sudhakar Tilak vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.,Pp on 2 August, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Criminal Petition No. 20 of 2016
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No.495 of 2015 pending on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 474, 354, 506, 509 r/w Section 34 IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent, Smt. Segu Jhansi Rani, lodged a report dated 23.12.2015 with the II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, alleging that her husband was carrying on cloth business and had taken an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner as call money in the year 2011 payable together with interest at Rs.10/- per hundred. On 25.09.2012, her husband died and, thereafter, she paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner towards discharge of loan. Despite discharge, the petitioner forcibly taken from her a blank signed promissory note, eight cheques drawn on ING Vysya Bank, eight cheques drawn on Oriental Bank, ATM card, Pan card, voter card and pressurizing her to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs and if not paid, he would drag her to road and started harassing her daughter by using filthy language. On the basis of the said report, the police registered FIR No.495 of 2015 for the offences referred above. 2
3. The main grounds urged before this Court are that Crime No.49 of 2015 on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 355 IPC, on the basis of a report dated 25.02.2015 lodged by the daughter of the 2nd respondent; that the police filed a charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1024 of 2016 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, the petitioner was tried for the said offences, found not guilty and accordingly acquitted of the offences; and that when the daughter of the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner, lodging of another report by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner making similar allegations is nothing but abuse of process of law and, therefore, requested to quash the proceedings in FIR No.495 of 2015 against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, whereas learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the petition on the ground that these two incidents are different.
5. There is no dispute with regard to lodging of earlier report, which is the subject matter of C.C.No.1024 of 2016 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, trial of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 3 and 355 IPC, and his acquittal of the charges by calendar and judgment dated 31.08.2018. In the said case, the 2nd respondent herein was examined as P.W.2 whereas her daughter was examined as P.W.1. The allegations made in the C.C.No.1024 of 2016 and the present complaint are identical and when the Court disbelieved the harassment of daughter of the 2nd respondent by the petitioner in C.C.No.1024 of 2016 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, lodging a report on the same ground by the 2nd respondent herein is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The present complaint was lodged on 23.12.2015, whereas the accused was found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 355 IPC in C.C.No.1024 of 2016. Even before disposal of C.C.No.1024 of 2016, the 2nd respondent lodged the present complaint. However, the allegations are one and same, lodging reports with the police one after the other is nothing but abuse of process of law. It appears that the 2nd respondent, who was examined as P.W.2 in C.C.No.1024 of 2016, lodged a report to wreck vengeance against the petitioner, therefore, such conduct would amount to abuse of process of law. The Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal1 laid down certain guidelines. Even according to the principles laid down in the said case, if a report is lodged to wreck vengeance, the 1 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 4 Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings.
6. Taking into consideration all the allegations made in the present FIR and the allegations made in the earlier FIR, which was the subject matter of C.C.No.1024 of 2016, it can safely be concluded that the present report was lodged with mala fide intention to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. Hence, by applying the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal case (supra), the proceedings in the present FIR are liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No.495 of 2015 pending on the file of II Town Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, against the petitioner, are hereby quashed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J 2nd August, 2019 cbs 5 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Criminal Petition No. 20 of 2016 2nd August, 2019 cbs 6