Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1347 (AP)

Katragadda Mohini v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-09-23

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashment of proceedings against her in C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows : i. Petitioner herein is the accused No.1 and respondent No.2 herein is the defacto-complainant. Respondent No.2 and his wife after retiring from their respective employments intended to purchase house plots. When they came to know through the mediators that the petitioner was offering to sell the subject plot, the respondent No.2 agreed to purchase the same for Rs.5,00,000/-. Later, the petitioner showed some plot and represented that the land is covered under the sale deed purchased by him from one Sri M. Sambasiva Rao. When the respondent No.2 demanded the petitioner to measure the land, he told that due to rainy season, it was not possible to measure and fix boundaries and assured to do the same after registration and registered the subject plot. ii. Thereafter, on several occasions when the respondent No.2 demanded the petitioner to measure the land, he postponed the same. In the year 2010, the petitioner showed some plot and represented that the same is covered under the sale deed. But, respondent No.2 came to know that without having the subject land in the name of the petitioner, the petitioner executed sale deed with an intention to cheat the complainant. On that, respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint before the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, who in turn forwarded the complaint to respondent No.1. Based on the said compliant, the respondent No.1 registered the complaint in FIR No.862 of 2015, dated 18.12.2015 under Section 420 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 3. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 3. Heard Sri B.V. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused and learned Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1 and perused the entire material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. He further submits that respondent No.2 did not mention the date, on which, he demanded for measurement and fixation of boundaries. He also argued that the matter between the parties is a dispute of purely civil in nature and a civil dispute has been given a criminal cloak. As no offence punishable under various sections of the IPC is made out, he has prayed to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of the process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2020) 3 SCC 794 and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lokireddy Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P. and another, 2023 SCC Online (AP) 997. 5. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. He further submits that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed merely on the ground that the dispute was of a civil nature. The truth, or otherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during the course of the trial. There are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is : “Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner/ Accused in C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District?” 7. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is : “Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioner/ Accused in C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District?” 7. 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. 8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. 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. 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 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 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. (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. (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) 9. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima-facie establish the offences alleged or not. 10. A bare perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. It is pertinent to mention here that FIR and charge sheet reveal that in view of the land disputes between respondent No.2 and petitioner with regard to sale deed and in that connection, respondent No.2-defacto complainant approached the learned Court and the learned Court vide order dated 29.09.2015 forwarded the complaint to respondent No.1 and he registered the complaint in FIR No.862 of 2015 on 18.12.2015 under Section 420 IPC. 11. 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 : There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (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. In “V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78 ” the Apex Court laid down following ingredients to constitute cheating. “An offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. An offence of cheating may consist of two classes of cases: (1) where the complainant has been induced fraudulently or dishonestly. Such is not the case here; (2) When by reason of such deception, the complainant has not done or omitted to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not deceived or induced by the accused.” 13. Such is not the case here; (2) When by reason of such deception, the complainant has not done or omitted to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not deceived or induced by the accused.” 13. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (8) SCC 751 , wherein, it was held as under : “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants 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……….” (emphasis supplied) 14. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2013 (11) SCC 673 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under : “7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.” (emphasis supplied) 15. In the instant case, when the respondent No.2 and his wife intended to purchase house plots, they came to know that the petitioner was offering to sell the subject plot and agreed to purchase the same. In the instant case, when the respondent No.2 and his wife intended to purchase house plots, they came to know that the petitioner was offering to sell the subject plot and agreed to purchase the same. Later when the respondent No.2 demanded the petitioner to measure the land, the petitioner refused to do so on the ground that it is rainy season; but however assured to measure and fix the boundaries of the land after the same is registered in favour of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, inspite of the repeated request of the respondent No.2, the petitioner has postponed the same. The 2nd respondent thereafter, came to know that the subject plot is not available on land and the petitioner has executed the sale deed with an intention to cheat the complainant. On that, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner to create pressure upon her which shows that the dispute is purely a civil in nature, and the same has been given colour of a criminal offence. If at all the respondent No.2 is aggrieved by the action of the petitioner in not coming forward to measure and fix the boundaries of the schedule property, he should have submitted an application to the revenue authorities requesting them to survey the said land and it is his duty and responsibility to see that the land is surveyed even before purchasing the same. Further, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes. Even if the complaint allegations are taken into consideration, one cannot conclude, prima facie, that the Petitioner/Accused had committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner sold the subject plot to the respondent No.2 on 26.04.2002. But the respondent No.2 filed the private complaint on 29.09.2015, which is belated and nothing but abuse of the process of law. In such circumstances, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceedings. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interests of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. 16. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interests of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. 16. In view of the above discussion, it is necessary to consider the ambit and scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vested in the High Court. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. A purely civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Petitioner/Accused. 17. Having regard to the discussion referred above, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/Accused amounts to abuse of process of Court and in such circumstances, the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked to quash the proceedings. 18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.4946 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.