Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1258 (AP)

Shaik Mastanbee v. State

2024-09-02

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC No.512 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 56 of A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The allegations mentioned in the complaint, in brief, are as follows : (a) Respondent No.2/complainant, who has been working as a Lorry Driver since 20 years and accused No.1, who was working as a Carpenter were residing next door to each other. (b) Accused No.1 alongwith his wife and daughter, who are the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, used to run unauthorized chits, in which respondent No.2 along some others joined as chit members for the total chit amount of Rs.50,000/- and paid Rs.2,500/- per month for 14 months, towards monthly subscription, without any default. (c) One Polani Murali Krishna, who is one of the members of the said chit became highest bidder, however, accused Nos.1 to 3 had not paid the chit amount to said Murali Krishna and evaded the said payment on one pretext or the other. (d) When respondent No.2 alongwith other chit members questioned accused Nos.1 to 3, they neither responded properly nor returned the amount paid by them and were absconding by locking the doors of their house. (e) Based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, a case in Cr.No.132 of 2015 on the file of I Town Police Station, Chirala for the offence under Section 420 IPC and Section 56 of the Act has been registered against all accused Nos.1 to 3. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet which was numbered as CC No.512 of 2015 for the alleged offence. Grounds for quashment : 3. Being aggrieved by registration of the said case, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them on the following grounds. (a) Respondent No.1-Police failed to produce any evidence against accused Nos.1 to 3 to show that they are maintaining unauthorized chit business. (b) The ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not attract when the provisions of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 are applicable. (a) Respondent No.1-Police failed to produce any evidence against accused Nos.1 to 3 to show that they are maintaining unauthorized chit business. (b) The ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not attract when the provisions of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 are applicable. (c) Failure to pay the balance amount of the bid amount does not come under the ingredients of Section 415 IPC. (d) There is no evidence against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 that they run chit business alongwith deceased accused No.1 and the petitioners are implicated in the case as they are the family members of accused No.1. (e) The 2nd petitioner married to one Goli Gangadhar in the year 2002 and she is an employee in RIMS Hospital, Ongole and has been living with her husband since the date of her marriage. (f) There are no grounds to continue the proceedings against the petitioners. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri P. Srinivasulu, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ch. Jayanta Rao, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1 is in attendance. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence much less the alleged offence and that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the report. Learned Counsel would submit that no document has been filed by respondent No.1-Police to show that the petitioners herein alongwith accused No.1 had run unauthorized chit business. Learned Counsel would finally submit that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, as such, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. Hence prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations raised against the petitioners are the matter of trial and the truth or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during trial. At this stage, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for determination 7. Now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in CC No.512 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala ? Determination by the Court 8. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. Point for determination 7. Now the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in CC No.512 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala ? Determination by the Court 8. 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. 9. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At Paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: "102. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 prime 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. (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. (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) 10. A bare perusal of the complaint would disclose that accused No.1 alongwith petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, who are his wife and daughter respectively used to run unauthorized chits, in which respondent No.2 along some others are chit members on one of the chits run by them and they have paid Rs.2,500/- per month for 14 months, towards monthly subscription. When one of the chit members namely Polani Murali Krishna, became highest bidder, accused Nos.1 to 3 had not paid the chit amount to him and evaded the said payment. On that, though respondent No.2 alongwith other chit members asked the accused to return their money, they did not return the amounts and were absconding by locking the doors of their house. 11. On that, though respondent No.2 alongwith other chit members asked the accused to return their money, they did not return the amounts and were absconding by locking the doors of their house. 11. Perusal of the material on record would disclose that accused No.1 died on 21.09.2018 and copy of Death Certificate has also filed. However, death of accused No.1 would not automatically entitled for quashment of the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in view of the specific allegations levelled against the petitioners to attract the alleged offence. It is the main allegation levelled against the petitioners that by running unauthorized chits, they collected amounts from the public and cheated them without paying the chit amounts to them. As per Section 56 of Chit Funds Act, 1971, no person shall commence any auction or drawing of any chit unless he has obtained a certificate of commencement from the Registrar. The rival contentions raised by both parties are the matter of trial to be decided during the course of trial. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC do not attract when the provisions of the A.P. Chit Funds Act, 1971 are applicable, is neither tenable nor a ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The present case does not fall under any of the guidelines prescribed in Bhajanlal's case (supra). 12. The Court cannot throttle the proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and the criminal proceedings against them cannot be quashed since the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners are prima facie made out and hence the petition deserves dismissal. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.