Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1058 (AP)

T. Raghu v. D. S. Raveendranath

2007-10-29

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2007
JUDGMENT (G.V. Seethapathy, J.) These three criminal revision cases arises out of the common order dated 23-04-2003 in Crl.M.P. No. 250 of 1995, Crl. M.P. No. 323 of 2002 in C.C. No. 250 of 1995, Cri.M.P.No. 323 of 2002 in C.C.No. 194 of 1996 and Crl.M.P. No. 324 of 2002 in C.C. No. 195 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1 Class, Hindupur, wherein the said petitions filed by the first respondent herein under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the prosecution for the offences under Sections 379, 380, 420, 467, 468, 406 and 409 IPC, were allowed and the first respondent-accused was discharged. 2. As the three case arise out of the common order and based on same set of facts involving similar questions for consideration, they are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. T. Raghu, the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 1351 and 1352 of 2003 is the son of T. Narayanachetty, the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 1353 of 2003. They filed three complaints against the first respondent herein accusing him of various offences stated above. Originally they gave complaints to the police, but as the police took no action, the complainants filed private complaints before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences in C.C. No. 250 of 1995, C.C. No. 194 of 1996 and C.C.No. 195 of 1996. According to the complainants, the first respondent accused entered into an agreement of sale dated20-12-1993 regarding purchase of certain plant and machinery of Padmavathi Steel Rolling Mills belonging to the complainants and the accused was put in possession on the same day, whereupon the accused dismantled the steel rolling mills and took away machinery items despite protest by the complainant and the accused paid only an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- and failed to pay balance of sale consideration as per the terms of the agreement. The complainant further alleges that the accused committed breach of the contract and failed to perform his part of the same and raised a false plea that he paid Rs. 6,00,000/- under agreement and indulged in material alteration of the contents of the agreement by resorting to forgery, fabrication and cheating the complainant. 4. The accused filed three petitions i.e., Crl.M.P. Nos. 6,00,000/- under agreement and indulged in material alteration of the contents of the agreement by resorting to forgery, fabrication and cheating the complainant. 4. The accused filed three petitions i.e., Crl.M.P. Nos. 322, 323 and 324 of 2002 under Section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge from the prosecution on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the complaints are filed with a mala fide intention to harass the accused. He further pleaded that he was put in possess of the property under the terms of the agreement of sale and he was entitled to deal with the property and the rights if any arising out of contractual obligation between the parties cannot be sought to be enforced through criminal proceedings. The complainant filed a counter before the learned Magistrate opposing the applications and inter alia contending that a similar application filed previously in CrlM.P.No. 183 of 1998 was dismissed on merits by the learned Magistrate on 30-3-1998 and the said order has become final and the 2nd application for the same relief is not maintainable. It is further averred by the complainants in their counter that previously, the accused filed three criminal petitions before this Court and they were dismissed on 24-12-2001 after hearing both parties and hence the petitions are not maintainable. 5. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate by detailed order allowed three criminal petitions and discharged the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the complainants preferred the present revision cases. 6. Arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and respondents are heard. Records are perused. 7. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that in view of the earlier order dated 13-2-1998 dismissing' the petition for discharge, the second application for the same relief is not maintainable. It is not disputed that the accused filed petitions before the High Court for quashing the prosecution against him and while disposing of the said petitions i.e., Crl.P.No. 3345 of 1998 and 2 others dated 24-12-2001, liberty was given to the accused to file a petition for discharge before the learned Magistrate. Thereupon, the accused filed three petitions i.e., CrLM.P. Nos. 323, 323 and 324 of 2002 praying for discharge. The order of this Court dated 24-12-2001 giving opportunity to the accused to file petitions for discharge was not challenged and the said order became final. Thereupon, the accused filed three petitions i.e., CrLM.P. Nos. 323, 323 and 324 of 2002 praying for discharge. The order of this Court dated 24-12-2001 giving opportunity to the accused to file petitions for discharge was not challenged and the said order became final. As the accused filed the applications by virtue of liberty given to him by this Court, the objection raised by the petitioner regarding their maintainability is unsustainable. 8. It is not disputed that the complainants and the accused entered into an agreement of sale regarding the disposal of the plant and machinery of the steel rolling mill belonging to the complainants. The terms of the agreement are reduced to writing. According to the complainants, the accused paid an advance of Rs. 2,00,000/- and failed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/in cash within six months from the date of agreement and also failed to discharge the debt due to the State Bank of India, Hindupur in a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- within 8months as per the terms of the agreement and on the other hand, he removed the machinery from the site and took away the same. The accused on the other hand contends that he was put in possession of the property under the terms of the agreement and the complainants themselves committed breach of the contract and the dispute is essentially civil in nature. A perusal of the agreement shows that the terms of the contract are set out in detail as to who among the complainants and the accused committed breach of contract, if any, is a matter falling for consideration in appropriate civil proceedings. It is an established proposition that a dispute, which is essentially civil in nature, cannot be converted into subject matter of criminal prosecution. 9. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd., and others', the Apex Court held as follows: "A growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the Courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant." 10. Admittedly, no suit was filed for specific performance of the contract or for enforcement of any other civil remedies available under law by either of the parties without resorting to enforce their civil rights under the agreement of sale, the complainants have chosen to file the private complaints before the learned Magistrate accusing the first respondent of various offences. The agreement of sale discloses that the accused was put in possession with a liberty to run and manage the factory and use all the machinery, moveables and immovables to the best of his advantage and convenience according to his own diligence and the complainants have given up their rights to interfere with the management and running of the machinery by the accused. A perusal of the agreement of sale would disclose that the accused was entitled to deal with the subject property in the manner he considers fit and proper. If the complainants have any grievance regarding payment of the balance sale consideration, the remedy for them would be to initiate necessary civil proceedings in that regard, but not to file criminal complaints. There is absolutely no material on record prima facie satisfying the ingredients of the alleged offences warranting further proceedings against the accused pertaining to a dispute, which is essentially civil in nature. There is absolutely no material on record prima facie satisfying the ingredients of the alleged offences warranting further proceedings against the accused pertaining to a dispute, which is essentially civil in nature. The learned Magistrate has no proper consideration of the matter both on facts and law, allowed the plea of discharge by reasoned order and the same does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegally that warrants interference by this Court in exercising of revisional powers. 11. In the result, three criminal revision I cases are dismissed.