Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1541 (AP)

Kola Kiran Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-11-11

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. SUJATHA, J. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.888 of 2019 of Vijayawada city, Patamata Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 in the FIR and the 2 nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. On 28.12.2019, the 2 nd respondent herein has approached the S.H.O., of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada stating that her husband named 'Prem Kumar' works as Rapido Bike Taxi and had taken an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- as loan from accused No.1. Though the respondent No.2 and her husband have repaid an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-, the accused No.1 is harassing them for more money, aggrieved by which the husband of the 2 nd respondent has submitted a report through 'Spandana'. It is further stated in the complaint that on 28.12.2019 at 08.00 a.m., the husband of the complainant told the complainant that he would drop their children at school and then go in search of the 1 st accused. Thereafter, the complainant's husband telephoned the complainant at 10.30 a.m., asking the complainant to look after the children well. Subsequently, the complainant's husband posted one video to the complainant's Whatsapp which reveals that he was subjected to mental agony by the 1 st accused and hence he is dying by committing suicide. Stating thus, the complainant had requested the S.H.O., to take appropriate action to find out the whereabouts of the complainant's husband. Two days thereafter, on 31.12.2019, the complainant has again submitted a complaint to the S.I., Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada stating that the complainant has taken Rs.4,00,000/- for construction of house and Rs.2,00,000/- for the sister in law by name Agraharapu Jyothi, totaling Rs.6,00,000/- from the accused No.1 at an interest of Rs.3/- per month. At the time of taking the said amount, the accused No.1 has obtained signatures from the complainant on five blank cheques of Andhra Bank and also obtained signatures as if they have entered into an agreement with respect to the complainant's house. At the time of taking the said amount, the accused No.1 has obtained signatures from the complainant on five blank cheques of Andhra Bank and also obtained signatures as if they have entered into an agreement with respect to the complainant's house. The said interest of Rs.3/- was taken in the first month, which was subsequently changed by the accused No.1 to Rs.10/- by threatening to register the complainant's house in his name, if the amount is not paid with the said interest rate. Subsequently, the complainant has paid Rs.3,00,000/-, and the complainant has been paying Rs.30,000/- every month towards interest for the remaining Rs.3,00,000/- till May, 2019. On 28.05.2019, they have paid an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards the principal amount and started paying interest for the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/- till August, 2019. Thereafter, on 21.08.2019 and 22.08.2019, the accused No.1 has taken an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mother's eye surgery. Subsequently, the complainant has paid the remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- and when the accused No.1 was asked for return of the agreement papers, the accused No.1 has threatened the complainant stating that they still owe the accused No.1 Rs.16,00,000/-. 3. Though the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.12,13,000/- in total, the accused No.1 came to the complainant's house and has abused and threatened with dire consequences. The complainant's husband was also beaten by somebody on 05.11.2019. The accused No.1 has also threatened the complainant and her husband that they would be killed if they won't pay Rs.16,00,000/- by 26.11.2019. As such, the complainant's husband consumed pesticide owing to mental agony and was admitted in hospital for treatment. When a complaint is made in this regard to Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, police have come to hospital and recorded the statement. After receiving the treatment, the complainant's husband was discharged from the hospital. Two days thereafter, when the complainant and their relatives enquired the police, they gave ridiculous replies. Hence a report was made in Spandana, which was referred to Task Force for investigation. Since then, the accused Nos.2 to 4 along with accused No.1 started harassing complainant's husband and beat the complainant's husband on 27.12.2019. On 28.12.2019, the complainant's husband went out stating that he would drop their children at School, took one selfie video and uploaded it in facebook/whatsapp. Since then, the accused Nos.2 to 4 along with accused No.1 started harassing complainant's husband and beat the complainant's husband on 27.12.2019. On 28.12.2019, the complainant's husband went out stating that he would drop their children at School, took one selfie video and uploaded it in facebook/whatsapp. Being scared by the same, the complainant had lodged a missing case in Patamata Police Station, later, the complainant was informed that it might be the complainant's husband who had jumped into the canal by placing the bike on the road. Hence, requested the police to punish the accused Nos.1 to 4 being responsible for the death of the complainant's husband. 4. Basing on the aforesaid complaint, the police have registered the impugned FIR No.888/2019 at Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections384, 385, 506, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Seeking quashment of the said FIR No.888 of 2019 at Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada, the present petition is filed. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and contended that the content in the 1 st complaint and the 2 nd complaint submitted by the 2 nd respondent is quite contra. He states that the husband of the 2 nd respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- on 30.07.2018 from the 2 nd petitioner for his family expenses and after receiving the said amount, a promissory note was executed in his favour to repay the same along with interest @24% per annum. However, as the husband of the 2 nd respondent did not pay the amount, the 2 nd petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the husband of the 2 nd respondent on 13.12.2019 before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Vijayawada and the same was registered as O.S.No.2037 of 2019. In I.A.No.638 of 2019 in the aforesaid suit, the trial Court has passed an order on 13.12.2019 observing that unless the petition schedule property is brought under attachment the husband of the 2 nd respondent will not come forward to pay the debt. As such, the trial court has issued notice to the husband of the 2 nd respondent to furnish security to the extent of the suit amount duly observing that would lead to attachment of the petition schedule property. As such, the trial court has issued notice to the husband of the 2 nd respondent to furnish security to the extent of the suit amount duly observing that would lead to attachment of the petition schedule property. The said order which was served on the complainant's husband on 19.12.2019 which would show that there is a civil dispute between the 2 nd petitioner and the complainant's husband. In order to escape from the payment covered under the above civil suit proceedings, the 2 nd respondent intentionally has converted the civil issue into criminal in nature by filing the impugned FIR No.888 of 2019. The 1 st petitioner has got nothing to do with the case on hand and was falsely implicated. In the 1 st complaint dated 28.12.2019, the 2 nd respondent did not allege that the petitioners herein have committed any offence nor there is an allegation against the petitioners in any manner. In the subsequent complaint i.e. the complaint dated 31.12.2019, except using the word 'harassment', the role of the petitioners was not at all mentioned. The petitioners herein were implicated in the 2 nd complaint dated 31.12.2019 only as an after thought in order to harass the petitioners and to avoid the suit litigation. The complainant does not disclose any offence made out and as such no prima-facie case would make out against the petitioners; and requested this Court to quash the impugned FIR.No.888 of 2019 on the file of Patama Police Station, Krishna District. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner would constitute offence punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506, 306 read with Section 34 IPC, therefore, the proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed at this stage. The petitioners herein along with the accused No.1 have harassed the husband of the 2 nd respondent for non-payment of the loan amount. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 24.01.2020, this Court has passed the following interim order: “……In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings in crime No.888 of 2019 of Vijayawada City, Patamata Police Station, till the next date of hearing.” 8. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. When the criminal petition came up for hearing on 24.01.2020, this Court has passed the following interim order: “……In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of further proceedings in crime No.888 of 2019 of Vijayawada City, Patamata Police Station, till the next date of hearing.” 8. 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 proceedings in FIR.No.888 of 2019 of Patamata Police Station, Krishna District, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” 9. 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. 10. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 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 ]”. 12. In  “State of Haryana v. BhajanLal, [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335] ” the Apex Court considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: “(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. (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. 13. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 14. In the case on hand, the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 384, 385, 506, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. For better appreciation of the case, the aforesaid sections are reproduced as under: “ 384. Punishment for extortion.- Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 385. Putting person in fear or injury in order to commit extortion.- Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; 306. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 15. The definition of the word 'Extortion' as per Section 383 IPC is extracted hereunder: “ 383. Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 15. The definition of the word 'Extortion' as per Section 383 IPC is extracted hereunder: “ 383. Extortion : Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.” 16. In short, it can be said that extortion is forcing someone to transfer his or her treasures through force or threat to cause harm. It is a wrongful loss to the property holder and wrongful gain to the extortioner. A person must have a mala fide motive to cause a wrongful gain to the extortioner and wrongful loss to the owner and the essence of Sections 384 and 385 IPC is dishonest inducement and obtaining delivery of property through that inducement. It can also be understood that the offence of extortion is incomplete if there is no delivery of property by the property holder to the extortioner. In the case on hand, there is no material on record to prove that the petitioners herein have acted as extortioners and have had a motive to wrongfully gain from the husband of the defacto complainant herein. It is clear that in extortion, the person who was put in fear must have been induced dishonestly to deliver his property. But, from the complaint, it can be seen that except stating that the petitioners herein have harassed the husband of the 2 nd respondent, no other material has been placed proving that the petitioners had a malafide motive to gain from the husband of the 2 nd respondent. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 385 of I.P.C. against the petitioners herein. 17. Section 506 deals with the punishment to be imposed for criminal intimidation. For better understanding, the definition of 'Criminal Intimidation' as per Section 503 of IPC is extracted hereunder: “ 503. 17. Section 506 deals with the punishment to be imposed for criminal intimidation. For better understanding, the definition of 'Criminal Intimidation' as per Section 503 of IPC is extracted hereunder: “ 503. Criminal Intimidation .- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is no legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.” 18. Section 503 of the IPC, occurs when a person threatens another individual with physical harm, damage to their property, or harm to their reputation. The objective of such threats is to induce fear and alarm in the victim. The offender wants to force the victim to do something they are not legally required to do or to stop doing something they are required to do. Crimes falling under Section 503 IPC involve acts of intimidation where a person instils fear in another by using threats or gestures directed towards the person, property, reputation, or someone they are associated with. In the case on hand, there is no material on the face of the record which shows that the petitioners herein have forced the husband of the 2 nd respondent to do or not to do something nor have the petitioners instilled fear or alarm in the husband of the 2 nd respondent using threats or gestures. As such, the complaint does not disclose the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. against the petitioners herein. 19. Section 306 of IPC states that if a person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished as per law. To bring a case under this provision, it is crucial to demonstrate that the accused intentionally acted in a way that provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, it must be established whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no choice but to take their own life. In cases involving alleged abetment of suicide, there must be solid evidence of either direct or indirect incitement leading to the suicide. Therefore, it must be established whether the cruelty or harassment inflicted on the victim left them with no choice but to take their own life. In cases involving alleged abetment of suicide, there must be solid evidence of either direct or indirect incitement leading to the suicide. Simply claiming harassment is not enough to prove guilt. For a conviction, there must be clear evidence of a specific action by the accused that directly influenced or coerced the victim into taking their life, closely linked in time to the incident. It is vital to establish that the death was a result of suicide and that the accused actively participated in provoking or facilitating it. This could include actions that instigated or directly enabled the victim's decision. The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused played a significant role in the abetment. Without clear proof of the accused's active involvement in provoking or aiding the suicide, a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC cannot stand. The abetment must be explicitly shown through actions or behavior of the accused that directly contributed to the victim's decision. Mere harassment, unless coupled with deliberate acts of incitement or facilitation, is insufficient. Moreover, these actions must be closely tied to the time of the suicide, establishing a clear link between the accused's conduct and the tragic outcome. Only when this direct connection is proven can a conviction under Section 306 IPC be warranted. The burden of proof rests on the prosecution to demonstrate the accused's active involvement in order to hold them accountable for the alleged abetment of suicide. In the case on hand, it is clear that the 2 nd respondent has merely alleged that the petitioners have harassed the husband of the 2 nd respondent, which is insufficient to prove that the petitioners played a significant role in the abetment. As such, the petitioners cannot be punished for the alleged offence under Section 306 IPC. 20. Even otherwise, it can be seen that the petitioners were not included in the first complaint submitted by the 2 nd respondent dated 28.12.2019, but, it appears that the names of the petitioners were added in the 2 nd complaint dated 31.12.2019 only as an after thought. 20. Even otherwise, it can be seen that the petitioners were not included in the first complaint submitted by the 2 nd respondent dated 28.12.2019, but, it appears that the names of the petitioners were added in the 2 nd complaint dated 31.12.2019 only as an after thought. It is also apparent from the record that there is a civil suit filed by the 2 nd petitioner against the husband for non-payment of Rs.4,00,000/- borrowed by husband of the 2 nd respondent after duly executing a promissory note. Vide orders dated 13.12.2019, the court below has passed the following order: “…Hence in the said circumstances unless the petition schedule property is brought under attachment the respondent will not be come forward to pay the debt. To protect the interest of petitioner issue notice to respondent to furnish security to the extent of suit amount within 72 hours from the date of receipt of notice on failure to do so attach petition schedule property on payment of process” 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again has recorded that 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 2 nd respondent has filed a complaint in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioners herein and to pressurize the petitioners herein. 22. In view of the above, 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 FIR.No.888 of 2019 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada city, Krishna District is liable to be quashed. 23. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.