Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Venkata Narasaiah Setty vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 April, 2024
APHC010007332020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 117/2020
Between:
M. Venkata Narasaiah Setty ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.108 of 2019 on the file of Mantralayam Police Station, Kurnool District registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,18602.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
a. Respondent No.2/Complainant has been residing in Mantralayam with his wife Rukminamma. He purchased a plot of an extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents in 1 for short 'Cr.P.C' 2 for short 'IPC' 2 Sy.No.29 of Yemmiganur on 19.06.1980 from one Mallaiah of Manchala Village and his heirs for an amount of Rs.2,500/- and the same has been registered.
b. Respondent No.2 kept the original registered document with Petitioner/Accused, who is his brother-in-law. The wife of Respondent No.2 died on 10.11.2003. Since then, though Respondent No.2 has been asking the Petitioner/Accused for return of the document, he has not returned the same.
c. Subsequently, Petitioner/Accused created a forged document for the said plot, in the name of his wife and thereby cheated him. Petitioner also abused and threatened him with dire consequences. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioner. Grounds Sought for Quashment:
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds. a. Petitioner is innocent of the offence with which he is charged. The allegations mentioned in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged and no offence is made against the Petitioner. b. Respondent No.2 did not state in his complaint as to the purpose of keeping his original document with the Petitioner and as to why he did not take any steps for getting his document from the Petitioner 3 c. Since the petition filed for grant of interim injunction in O.S.No.74 of 2019, by the son of Respondent No.2, got dismissed, the present complaint has been filed with false and untenable allegations against the Petitioner d. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the commission of alleged offence and hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner. Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Though notice to Respondent No.2 was sent, the same was returned as refused and, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the wife of the Petitioner purchased the subject property from Respondent No.2 and his wife, vide a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2010. Thereafter, the wife of Petitioner died in a road accident on 18.12.2014. During her life, she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After her death, Petitioner married another woman.
6. Learned counsel further submits that in a family partition, the subject property fell to the share of the two sons of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the sons of the Petitioner obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, 4 Mantralayam for construction of a residential building in the subject site and the construction is at final stage.
7. Learned counsel would further submit that one Badami Vijay Kumar, who is the son of Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur against the Petitioner and his two sons for declaration. Initially he got ad-interim injunction, but on merits, the said injunction petition was dismissed. In the said suit, the Petitioner herein also filed his written statement by mentioning the facts. After seeing the written statement, on 26.12.2019 the present complaint has been filed alleging that the subject property stands in the name of Respondent No.2 and his wife was fabricated in the name of the wife of the Petitioner. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner are all false, concocted and baseless. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another3 and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lokireddy Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P. and another4.
8. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations will be revealed during the course of trial. 3 (2020) 3 SCC 794 4 2023 SCC Online (AP) 997 5 There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
Point for Determination
9. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.108 of 2019 on the file of Mantralayam Police Station, Kurnool District?
Determination by the Court
10. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State 6 of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others5 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;
"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) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(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 5 AIR 1992 SC 604 7 reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."
(emphasis supplied)
12. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not.
13. A bare perusal of the material available on record would go to show that, during his life-time, the wife of the Petitioner had purchased the subject property from Respondent No.2 and his wife under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4095 of 2010, dated 21.07.2010. Admittedly, the son of Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Court Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur for declaration of title over the subject property and also for consequential permanent injunction. He son of the Petitioner also filed 8 written statement in the said suit. The petition filed for temporary injunction in the said suit was dismissed on 17.06.2019. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed on 26.12.2019. After filing of the said complaint, the Inspector of Police, Mantralayam issued notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C to the Petitioner on 04.01.2020 informing him about registration of the said case and instructing him to produce the documents he had, if any, regarding the subject property. Petitioner had issued a reply dated 05.01.2020 informing about the pendency of declaration suit and dismissal of the interim injunction petition and also about filing of the documents available with him in the said suit.
14. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another6, wherein, it was held as under:
"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of 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 pressurise parties to settle civil disputes.........."
(emphasis supplied)
15. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to 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 disclosing 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 6 2009 (8) SCC 751 7 2013 (11) SCC 673 9 situation, if a civil 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."
(emphasis supplied)
16. In the instant case, in view of the pendency of O.S.No.74 of 2019 filed for declaration of title over the subject property and the dismissal of the interim injunction in the said suit, it can be said that the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of a criminal offence. Further, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes. Even if the complaint allegations are taken into consideration, one cannot conclude prima facie, that the Petitioner/Accused had committed the alleged offence. Since the Petitioner filed the registered sale deed pertaining to the subject property which is in the name of the wife of the Petitioner and when the issue as to the genuineness of the documents is pending for consideration in a civil suit, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings ought not have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interests of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the matter appears to be purely civil in nature and there appears to be no cheating or forgery. A purely civil dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Petitioner/ Accused.
18. Having regard to the discussion referred above, and in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties with regard to the same subject property, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal 10 proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused amounts to abuse of process of Court and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are liable to be invoked to quash the proceedings.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.108 of 2019 on the file of Mantralayam Police Station, Kurnool District registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 506 IPC.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 22.04.2024 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 11 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.P.No.117 of 2020 Dt.22.04.2024 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI CRIMINAL PETITION No.117 of 2020 Between:
M VENKATA NARASAIAH SETTY, S/O. LATE M. VIRUPANNA SETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, D.NO. 4- 84/2,MANTRALAYAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.
2. B NARAHARI SETTY, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH SETTEE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, H.NO. 4-782, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, MANTRALAYAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 22.04.2024 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Her Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 13 * THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA + CRIMINAL PETITION No.117 of 2020 % 22.04.2024 Between:
M VENKATA NARASAIAH SETTY, S/O. LATE M. VIRUPANNA SETTY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, D.NO. 4- 84/2,MANTRALAYAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI.
2. B NARAHARI SETTY, S/O. NARASIMHAIAH SETTEE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, H.NO. 4-782, RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR, MANTRALAYAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri BUTTA VIJAYA BHASKER ^ Counsel for Respondents : Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 < Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2020) 3 SCC 794
2. 2023 SCC Online (AP) 997
3. AIR 1992 SC 604
4. 2009 (8) SCC 751
5. 2013 (11) SCC 673 This Court made the following: