Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 431 (AP)

V. Nagesh v. P. n. Vagdevi

2020-06-18

M.GANGA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M. Ganga Rao, J. - This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioner -accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in F.I.R No.67/2020, dated 23.03.2020 on the file of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 468 and 474 r/w 34 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent. 3. The contents of the copy of the Complaint, dated 23.03.2020, submitted by one P.N.Vagdevi (1st respondent-defacto complainant) discloses that since the date of her marriage with the accused No.1, he harassed her mentally and physically. He made her to put up an Automobiles and furniture business at Puttur and dealt with all financial transactions. Thereafter, when serious misunderstandings arose between them, he forged her signature and took an advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the shop owner. Further it was also alleged that the petitioner herein in collusion with accused No.1 filed a false suit stating that the defacto complainant borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- under three (3) promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- each and that the said promissory notes are created and forged by accused No.1 in collusion with the other accused. 4. The said F.I.R is registered as F.I.R No.67/2020, dated 23.03.2020 on the file of Nagari Urban Police Station, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 468 and 474 r/w 34 IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case with an ill motive to avoid repayment of the debt due to the petitioner and the allegations made in the complaint are baseless and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said allegations and the 1st respondent is trying to convert civil litigation into criminal case. No specific allegations are made against the petitioner which amounts to constitution of the offences under the provisions of Sections 420, 468 and 474 read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel relied on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his submissions that when the contractual obligation arises under the agreements, the same could not be converted into criminal proceedings only to prevent the execution of the agreements through civil litigation. Learned counsel relied on several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his submissions that when the contractual obligation arises under the agreements, the same could not be converted into criminal proceedings only to prevent the execution of the agreements through civil litigation. If any complaint is filed making accusations as a counter blast to the civil proceedings, the registration of the FIR is abuse of process of law and the same has to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that this is not the stage to quash the entire proceedings by exercising extra ordinary power vested in the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The powers should not be exercised in a case like this and the investigation should continue as the complaint prima facie discloses offences for which the FIR is registered against the petitioner -A2. In support of his contentions, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. The State Of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 . 7. A reading of the complaint prima facie discloses that since the date of the marriage of the de facto complainant with A1, he used to harass her mentally and physically. He made her to put up an automobile and furniture business at Puttur and dealt with all financial transactions. Thereafter, when serious misunderstandings arose between them, he forged her signature and took advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from the shop owner. Further, it is also alleged that the petitioner -A2, in collusion with A1, filed a false suit stating that the de facto complainant borrowed Rs.9,00,000/- under three promissory notes for Rs.3,00,000/- each and the said promissory notes are created and forged by A1 in collusion with the other accused. The de facto complainant further stated that as one C. Kiran Kumar, K. Ramesh filed affidavits in the suit stating that she took credit from the petitioner -V. Nagesh, she searched for the said persons in the address given in the affidavits, but no such persons are available in the said addresses. The suit is filed based on the alleged promissory notes by forging the signature of the de facto complainant. The said allegations prima facie disclose the offences which were registered against the petitioner. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. The suit is filed based on the alleged promissory notes by forging the signature of the de facto complainant. The said allegations prima facie disclose the offences which were registered against the petitioner. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, (1992) AIR SC 604 , has laid down certain guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. It is profitable to extract hereunder the said guidelines. (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 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 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. (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. Following the above guidelines, in the instant case allegations levelled against the petitioner if uncontroverted would prima facie amount to an offence which requires further investigation. At the stage of investigation, the same could not be interdicted. Therefore, the investigation must be proceeded with to lead its logical conclusion. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.