Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1464 (AP)

Ruppa Anuradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-11-20

B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "CrPC") to quash the proceedings in Crime No.107 of 2019 of G.Sigadam Police Station, wherein the petitioners are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Ss. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity "IPC"). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioners on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponduru alleging that there are civil disputes pending between the petitioners and respondent No.2 in Civil Courts; the 1st petitioner is Ex-Sarpanch of the village and 3rd petitioner is her husband; the 2nd petitioner is alleged to be a fictitious person set up by enemies of the respondent No.2; the 2nd petitioner filed O.S.No.1 of 2019 on the file of Family Court, Srikakukalam for the reliefs of "Declaration" and "Recovery of Possession"; the 2nd petitioner who was stranger to the respondent No.2, being instigated by the 3rd petitioner, filed the above suit by forging the Certificate got issued by the Sarpanch i.e., 1st petitioner herein, dtd. 8/3/2017; the Certificate issued by 1st petitioner was produced for the purpose of showing the 2nd petitioner as resident of Gedda Kancharam Village and also to show that she was the wife of Nakka Papinaidu, who survived till 1977 and that later she left to Chinthalapadu village and also visit Gedda Kancharam village occasionally and getting cultivating the land cultivated by N.Suryanarayana, N.Venkata Ramana and N.Muralidhara Rao. When the copy was supplied, the respondent No.2 addressed letter under Sec. 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish necessary application and also the resolution copy; the reply given by the Panchayat Secretary, Geddakancharam village, dtd. 18/6/2019 indicates that there is no available record by the date of reply; the respondent No.2 believes that the Certificate was pressed into service in the civil suit at the instigation of his natural brothers with a view to take revenge against the respondent No.2; petitioners alleged to have committed the offence for the sake of spurious litigation only. It is the contention of petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case only to harass them; initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is pure abuse of process of law. It is the contention of petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case only to harass them; initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is pure abuse of process of law. Hence, they request to quash the criminal proceedings. 3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponduru referred the complaint to police under Sec. 156 (3) CrPC and police registered the complaint as a case in Crime No.107 of 2019 on 4/10/2019 for offences punishable under Sec. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that basing on a private complaint filed by the respondent No.2, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponduru referred the complaint to the police under Sec. 156 (3) of CrPC to register FIR and investigate the same and then, the Station House Officer, G.Sigadam Police Station of Srikakulam District registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sec. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 under the allegations that the 1st petitioner issued a Certificate dtd. 8/3/2017 in favour of 2nd petitioner at the instance of the 3rd petitioner stating that the 2nd petitioner is wife of one Nakka Papi Naidu of Gedda Kancharam village, G.Sigadam Mandal of Srikakulam District and that, she lead conjugal life till 1977 and thereafter, after the death of Papi Naidu, she left to her native place Chinthalapeta village and she has been visiting Gedda Kancharam village now and then and getting the lands cultivated through Nakka Suryanarayana, Nakka Venkata Ramana and Nakka Muralidhara Rao. 5. Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 461, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC and the contents of FIR does not make out any ingredients required to register a case for the offence under above Sec. of IPC and the contention of respondent No.2 as per his complaint is that it was a "False Certificate" issued by the 1st petitioner at the instance of 3rd petitioner in favour of 2nd petitioner. But nothing was alleged in the complaint as to how the offence of "Cheating" as laid down under Sec. 417 and 420 IPC was committed by issuing the alleged Certificate and further, nothing was made out in the complaint to attract the offence of "Forgery" with reference to the impugned Certificate issued by the 1st petitioner. Therefore, prima facie the complaint and the FIR do not disclose any offence except alleging that the 1st petitioner issued a "False Certificate". 6. He would further submit that admittedly, there are civil disputes between the 2nd petitioner and the respondent No.2 in various Courts relating to some immovable properties of late Nakka Papi Naidu and therefore, the 2nd respondent with an oblique motive, to harass the petitioners laid the complaint and the police registered an FIR as the complaint was forwarded to them under Sec. 156 (3) CrPC and the learned Magistrate without following the guidelines laid down by the Hon"ble Apex Court, simply referred the complaint to the police under Sec. 156 (3) CrPC and police registered the impugned FIR without verifying whether the complaint is making out any prima facie case for the ingredients of the offence punishable under Ss. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC with reference to the alleged Certificate issued by the 1st petitioner and therefore, the respondent No.2 abused the process of law to harass the petitioners and hence, it is a fit case to quash the FIR to prevent the abuse of process of law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the 1st petitioner without any authority issued the disputed Certificate dtd. 8/3/2017 in favour of 2nd petitioner at the instance of 3rd petitioner, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner to cause loss to the respondent No.2 and therefore, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court and referred the same under Sec. 156 (3) CrPC to G.Sigadam Police Station and they registered the impugned FIR and there are no grounds to quash the FIR. 8. In the light of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is as under: "Whether case in the Crime No.107 of 2019 on the file of G.Sigadam Police Station be quashed as prayed for? 9. 8. In the light of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is as under: "Whether case in the Crime No.107 of 2019 on the file of G.Sigadam Police Station be quashed as prayed for? 9. P O I N T: In order to support the case of petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 148.. wherein the Hon"ble Apex Court in at para-No.13 it was held as under: "The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence." 10. Further, in Prof. R.K.Vijayasarathy and another vs. Sudha Seetharam and another, (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 739. the Hon"ble Supreme Court at para No.10 observed as under: "If the averments in the complaint taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence or do not disclose the commission of an offence under IPC, the criminal proceedings may be quashed under Sec. 482 CrPC. 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 IPC." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision made in a case of Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1. wherein the Hon"ble Supreme Court at para-No.46 held as under: "The Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Sec. 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself." 12. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Sec. 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself." 12. Apart from the above proposition of law relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and before adjudicating the merits of the petition on hand, it is imperative to refer the Judgment of the Hon"ble Supreme Court in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315. wherein at para No.80 the Hon"ble Apex Court made final conclusions in respect of dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining /not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of power under Sec. 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which are as under: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a cognizable offence; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere; ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Sec. 482 CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab; AIR 1960 SC 866 . (supra) and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. (supra) and State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Sec. 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; xvi) The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Sec. 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps to be adopted" and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 Cr. P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/charge sheet is filed under Sec. 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Sec. 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. xvii) Even in a case where the High Court is prima facie of the opinion that an exceptional case is made out for grant of interim stay of further investigation, after considering the broad parameters while exercising the powers under Sec. 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India referred to hereinabove, the High Court has to give brief reasons why such an interim order is warranted and/or is required to be passed so that it can demonstrate the application of mind by the Court and the higher forum can consider what was weighed with the High Court while passing such an interim order. xviii) Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of "no coercive steps to be adopted" within the aforesaid parameters, the High Court must clarify what does it mean by "no coercive steps to be adopted" as the term "no coercive steps to be adopted" can be said to be too vague and/or broad which can be misunderstood and/or misapplied. 13. Hon"ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra). In the said decision, the Hon"ble Supreme Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Sec. 482 CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, at para-No.102, the Hon"ble Apex Court identified the cases in which FIR/ complaint can be quashed: "(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 Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 155(2) of the Code. (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 Sec. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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." 14. In the light of above parameters, the question is whether the allegation in the impugned FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or not, where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice. 15. The material placed before this Court i.e., the grounds urged in the petition, the contents of the FIR/complaint would disclose that there are civil disputes between the 2nd petitioner and respondent No.2 in the case pertaining to the properties of late Nakka Papi Naidu. The impugned FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners on the ground that the 1st petitioner issued the Certificate dtd. The impugned FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Ss. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners on the ground that the 1st petitioner issued the Certificate dtd. 8/3/2017 in favour of the 2nd petitioner and it was further alleged that it was issued at the instance of 3rd petitioner, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner. 16. It appears that the 1st petitioner is working as Sarpanch at the relevant point in time and issued the Certificate stating that the 2nd petitioner is wife of Nakka Papi Naidu and that, after death of her husband, she left to her native place and later came to village now and then and cultivating the lands. 17. Now the question is whether act of issuing the alleged Certificate, would make out necessary ingredients to register a case for the offence punishable under Ss. 417, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC against the petitioners. Sec. 415 IPC defines the term 'Cheating'. It reads as under: "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "Cheat"." Sec. 463 IPC defines the term 'Forgery', which reads as under: "Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery." 18. It is made clear that at this stage, the Court is not considering whether the allegations are true or false; Court considered the question whether the allegations in the FIR/complaint on their face making any primafacie case to attract any cognizable offence, particularly punishable under Ss. 417, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. i.e, "Cheating" or "Forgery". 19. It is made clear that at this stage, the Court is not considering whether the allegations are true or false; Court considered the question whether the allegations in the FIR/complaint on their face making any primafacie case to attract any cognizable offence, particularly punishable under Ss. 417, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. i.e, "Cheating" or "Forgery". 19. On perusal of the FIR/complaint, this Court is of the considered opinion that on the face of the allegations leveled against the petitioners, they are not making out any cognizable offence punishable under Sec. 417, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC. 20. The FIR/complaint does not disclose any facts as to how the petitioners committed the offence of "Cheating" to attract Sec. 415/417 and 420 IPC. The complaint would show that the complainant made allegations against 1st and 3rd petitioners about issuing a certificate without any authority, Therefore, the complainant questioning the authority of 1st petitioner. The complaint is not disclosing any allegations to attract the offence of "Cheating" or "Forgery" to bring the case under Sec. 417, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC. 21. The facts and circumstances would establish that the complaint was launched by the 2nd respondent with sole intention to settle the civil disputes, with the aid of criminal law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the inherent powers of the Court under Sec. 482 CrPC be invoked to quash the FIR/ Complaint in Crime No.107 of 2019 of G.Sigadam Police Station, Srikakulam District. Accordingly, the point is answered. 22. IN THE RESULT, the Criminal Petition is "Allowed" quashing the proceedings in Crime No.107 of 2019 of G.Sigadam Police Station, Srikakulam District, registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Ss. 468, 417, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.