Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1307 (AP)

P. B. Srinivas v. State of A. P.

2024-09-17

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. These two Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur filed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1097 of 2019 are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2; petitioner in Crl.P.No.4473 of 2019 was arraigned as accused No.3, in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. The respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. On 15.04.2017, the 2nd respondent herein has approached the Salur Town Police Station and reported that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed fraud and cheated her by dealing with the properties situated in Sy.No.216-1B, 1C of Gumadam Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District which belong to her; that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have illegally, knowingly and with fraudulent intention executed registered sale deeds vide document bearing Nos.1460, 1461, 1462/2015, dated 27.06.2015 in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. The 2nd respondent further submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.9817 of 2015 wherein they have stated that they are the owners and possessors of the land situated in TS.No.159/2, 162/2 of Salur Town, which is recorded as grama kantam in village record; that the accused Nos.1 and 2 sought direction from the Court in terms of the orders passed in another W.P.No.1339 of 2014, wherein there was a direction to effect registrations of lands in Sy.Nos.159/2, 162/2 situated in Salur Town. The said writ petition filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 was disposed of on 08.04.2015, basing on which the accused Nos.1 and 2 executed registered sale deeds of the property belonging to the respondent No.2 of Sy.No.216-B/1C/Gundam revenue village, Salur Town in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has approached the District Collector expressing her grievance, who in turn had addressed a letter dated 16.09.2016 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram who in turn had entrusted the matter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has submitted a report dated 14.10.2016 to the District Collector, stating that the land shown with specified boundaries in sale deeds is in respect of Sy.No.216-1B, 1C Gumadam revenue village but not in respect of Sy.No.162-2. The Tahsildar has submitted a report dated 14.10.2016 to the District Collector, stating that the land shown with specified boundaries in sale deeds is in respect of Sy.No.216-1B, 1C Gumadam revenue village but not in respect of Sy.No.162-2. The respondent No.2 further submitted that her lands are situated in Sy.No.216, Katha No.655 which stands in the name of her father in law and that she is the legal heir of the said property. As such, the 2nd respondent has requested the police to register a case against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Sub-Registrar who has registered unlawful documents by suppressing the real facts was arraigned as accused No.3, the purchasers of the said property were arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 6 and the mediators, attesters of the documents were arraigned as accused Nos.7 and 8. Basing on the said report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2017 against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. After due investigation, the police have filed the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 against the accused on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 against the accused Nos.1 to 3, the present petitions have been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments contended that the 2nd respondent in her statement stated that there was a partition suit which was pending before the Civil Court between herself and the family members. The dispute between the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein is purely a civil in nature and the present complaint is filed to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent has no right to claim over the property in Sy.No.216 of Gumdam Village, Salur Town as it belongs to the Government as per the report submitted by the Tahsildar. He has submitted that if the allegations made in the charge-sheet, even if accepted to be true in entirety do not disclose the ingredients of any offence of cheating as under Section 420 of IPC. He has submitted that if the allegations made in the charge-sheet, even if accepted to be true in entirety do not disclose the ingredients of any offence of cheating as under Section 420 of IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 420, cheating is not the only act that should be taken into consideration, but, as a consequence to cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security. In the present case, no such act took place and as such, the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the property in Sy.No.216-1B,1C of Gumadam Village, Salur Mandal belongs to the respondent No.2 as she is the legal heir and the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed fraud and cheated her by executing registered sale deeds in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. The said sale deeds were registered by the accused No.3 who has colluded with the accused Nos.1 and 2. As such, all the petitioners herein are liable to be punished under Section 420 IPC and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed, as the proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 cannot be quashed at this stage. 5. When Crl.P.No.1097 of 2019 came up for hearing on 22.02.2019, this Court has granted interim stay on all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows : “Whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.390/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur filed against the petitioners herein under Section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C., is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 7. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice. 8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows : In “R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866 ”, the Apex Court laid down the following principles : (i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice; (ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; and (iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. 9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 ” 10. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 11. The petitioners herein are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 of I.P.C. deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The word “Cheating” is defined under Section 415 of I.P.C and it is as follows : “415. Cheating:- 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". The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are : (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 12. While dealing with the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Another Vs. State of Kerala & Others, (2015) 8 SCC 293 ”, held as follows : “It is true that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. In the present case there is nothing to show that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all. Criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when it is found to be malafide or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. The Superior courts while exercising this power should also strive to serve the ends of justice. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings.” 13. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings.” 13. In the instant case, I am not inclined to look into the question whether the said property in Sy.No.216-1B, 1C of Gumadam village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram belongs to the 2nd respondent, but, the main point for consideration is whether the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint before police against the accused Nos.1 to 8 for cheating. It was alleged by the 2nd respondent that the accused Nos.1 and 2 fraudulently executed registered sale deeds of the properties belonging to the 2nd respondent, in Sy.nos.216-1B, 1C of Gumadam village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. Though the property in the aforesaid survey number allegedly belongs to the 2nd respondent, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed fraud by selling the same to accused Nos.4 to 6. For having registered the sale deeds presented by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6, the 2nd respondent has arraigned the Sub-Registrar as accused No.3 alleging that the accused No.3 has unlawfully suppressed the real facts and registered the sale deeds vide document Nos.1460/2015, 1461/2015, 1462/2015, dated 27.06.2015. 14. When a sale deed is executed by conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But, in the instant case, the complainant is not the purchaser but the person who claims herself to be the owner of the said property. The purchasers have been made as co-accused/accused Nos.4 to 6. But, in the instant case, the complainant is not the purchaser but the person who claims herself to be the owner of the said property. The purchasers have been made as co-accused/accused Nos.4 to 6. It is not the case of the 2ndrespondent that any of the accused tried to deceive her either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the accused Nos.1 and 2 pretended to be the complainant by identity while executing the sale deeds. As such, it cannot be said that the accused Nos.1 and 2 by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the accused Nos.4 to 6, or the accused No.3 in having executed the sale deeds presented by the accused Nos.1 and 2, deceived the 2nd respondent in any manner. 15. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complaints 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 pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. The 2ndrespondent herein, in the statement submitted by her before the Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.04.2017 has unconditionally admitted that she has filed a suit before the court below aggrieved by the action of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in fraudulently selling away her property. There is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement in the civil dispute. There is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement in the civil dispute. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another V. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 INSC 34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Even in the present case, it appears that the 2nd respondent has filed the present complaint in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioners herein and to pressurize the petitioners herein. As continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners may amount to the abuse of the process of the court and as the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, this Court feels that the charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur is liable to be quashed. 16. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur are quashed in respect of the petitioners i.e. accused Nos.1 to 3. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.