Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 667 (AP)

Imran Khan v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-06-19

K.SREENIVASA REDDY

body2024
ORDER:- K SREENIVASA REDDY, J. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.447 of 2022 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A.1, A.4 and A.5 in the said C.C. 2. A charge sheet has been filed as against the petitioners and others, for the offences punishable under Sections 365 , 447, 323, 506, 342, 143 read with 149 IPC. The allegations, in brief, are as follows. 2 nd respondent/ defacto complainant was working in Ahad Cooling Solutions, A.C. show room situated in Eluru road, Vijayawada. A.1 approached the firm and obtained quotation from 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant for purchasing 8 AC units and gave a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of the firm viz. Ahad Cooling Solutions. It is further alleged that when it was informed that stock was not available and it would take three months’ time to deliver the product, A.1 accepted. The cheque was handed over to the owner Naseer Khan. In January, 2020, 2 nd respondent started pipeline work for fixing the ACs in the house of A.1, by taking Rs.1.00 lakh cash, and informed that after getting stock of ACs, work would be completed. In the month of November, 2020, A.1 enquired 2 nd respondent, he replied that he was not working in Ahad Cooling Solutions and told to ask the owner Naseer Khan. When A.1 asked the owner, he told to send the remaining Rs.2.00 lakhs as per quotation so that he would bring the product and also stated that due to lock down, previous order was cancelled. A.1 gave another Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of Ahad Cooling Solutions. Thereafter, neither 2nd respondent nor his owner responded. On 11.12.2020 at about 9.30 PM, A.1 to A.5 together went to house of 2 nd respondent, and A.1, A.5 and A.4 were present at the car and A.2 and A.3 together went to house of 2nd respondent and asked him to come down for talking, and when he came down, he was forcibly taken away in their car to house of A.1. On information, brothers of 2nd respondent (LWs 2 to 4) rushed there and questioned the act of the accused. On information, brothers of 2nd respondent (LWs 2 to 4) rushed there and questioned the act of the accused. At that time, A.6 beat them and they forcibly took away 2nd respondent into house of A.1 and threatened him to see his end if he does not give their amount and sent him away from the house. Hence, the accused kidnapped 2 nd respondent, criminally trespassed into house of 2nd respondent and voluntarily caused hurt with hands and wrongfully confined him and threatened with dire consequences to see his end in furtherance of their common object. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there are civil disputes pending with regard to return of money and execution of pending works, between 2 nd respondent and petitioners herein, and as a counter blast to the demand made by A.1 and A.2 either to return their money or to execute the work, 2nd respondent/defacto complainant resorted in filing the present complaint, with the active connivance of one Mr. Nazir, and hence, he seeks to quash the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners. The learned counsel relied on a decision in Ravi Dhingra v. State of Haryana , 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that the allegations in the police report, Section 161 CrPC statements and charge sheet would make out a prima facie case for the offences alleged as against the petitioners, and hence, there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for 1st respondent-State contended that there are specific accusations as against the petitioners and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact, which have to be decided during the course of trial. 6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact 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 and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors. , [AIR 1992 SC 604] wherein the Apex Court held, “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 channelized 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 F.I.R. 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.” 7. Perused the record. 8. The allegations are that 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant was working in Ahad Cooling Solutions, A.C. show room situated in Eluru road, Vijayawada. A.1 approached the firm and obtained quotation from 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant for purchasing 8 AC units and gave a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of the firm viz. Ahad Cooling Solutions. When it was informed that stock was not available and it would take three months’ time to deliver the product, A.1 accepted. A.1 approached the firm and obtained quotation from 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant for purchasing 8 AC units and gave a cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of the firm viz. Ahad Cooling Solutions. When it was informed that stock was not available and it would take three months’ time to deliver the product, A.1 accepted. 2nd respondent handed over the cheque to the owner Naseer Khan. In January, 2020, 2 nd respondent started pipeline work for fixing the ACs in the house of A.1, by taking Rs.1.00 lakh cash, and informed that after getting stock of ACs, work would be completed. In the month of November, 2020, A.1 enquired 2 nd respondent as to when ACs would be fixed, for which the latter replied that he was not working in Ahad Cooling Solutions and told to ask the owner Naseer Khan. When A.1 asked the owner, he told to send the remaining Rs.2.00 lakhs as per quotation so that he would bring the product and also stated that due to lock down, previous order was cancelled. A.1 gave another Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of Ahad Cooling Solutions. Thereafter, neither 2nd respondent nor his owner responded. On 11.12.2020 at about 9.30 PM, A.1 and his brother A.2 and A.4, along with car driver A.5, were proceedings towards house of 2 nd respondent at Gollapudi by car No.AP16DP 9395, and on their way, A.3 also met at Kummaripalem, and A.1 to A.5 together went to house of 2 nd respondent, and A.1, A.5 and A.4 were present at the car and A.2 and A.3 together went to house of 2 nd respondent and asked him to come down for talking, and when he came down, he was forcibly taken away in their car to house of A.1. On information, brothers of 2nd respondent (LWs 2 to 4) rushed there and questioned the act of the accused. At that time, A.6 beat them and they forcibly took away 2 nd respondent into house of A.1 and threatened him to see his end if he does not give their amount and sent him away from the house. Hence, the accused kidnapped 2 nd respondent, criminally trespassed into house of 2nd respondent and voluntarily caused hurt with hands and wrongfully confined him and threatened with dire consequences to see his end in furtherance of their common object. 9. Hence, the accused kidnapped 2 nd respondent, criminally trespassed into house of 2nd respondent and voluntarily caused hurt with hands and wrongfully confined him and threatened with dire consequences to see his end in furtherance of their common object. 9. Insofar as petitioners/A.1, A.4 and A.5 are concerned, the accusation that has been made as against them is that A.1 to A.5 together went to house of 2nd respondent on the fateful day, where the petitioners/ A.1, A.4 and A.5 were present at the car and A.2 and A.3 went to house of 2 nd respondent, which is situated in second floor and asked him to come down for talking. When he came to the car, he was forcibly taken away to the house of A.1 at Tarapet. Thereafter, A.6 is alleged to have beat brothers of 2nd respondent, who came there and questioned the act of the accused, and 2nd respondent was threatened to give back the money which has been paid by A.1 for fixing of ACs in his newly constructed house. The accusation has been made as against A.6 is that he is alleged to have beat brothers of 2 nd respondent. The question that arises for consideration is whether prima facie offence under Sections 365 and 447 would attract as against the petitioners/A.1, A.4 and A.5 or not. 10. 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant is alleged to have been taken away by the accused only for the purpose of negotiations, as an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs was paid to 2 nd respondent, who was working in Ahad Cooling Solutions, A.C. show room situated in Eluru road, Vijayawada and 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant or his owner was not responding either to fix the ACs in the house of A.1 or he was not repaying the said amount to A.1. Only in connection with that, he was taken to the house of A.1. Insofar as petitioners/ A.1, A.4 and A.5 are concerned, no specific overt-act has been attributed as against them, except to the extent that 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant was taken away to the house of A.1. It is not the case of the prosecution that having taken 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to the house of A.1, he was detained in the house of A.1 for the reason that after negotiations, he was sent back to his house. It is not the case of the prosecution that having taken 2nd respondent/defacto complainant to the house of A.1, he was detained in the house of A.1 for the reason that after negotiations, he was sent back to his house. Apart from that, L.Ws.2 to 4 (brothers of 2 nd respondent) who were aware of the fact that 2 nd respondent/defacto complainant was taken to the house of A.1, have gone to the house of A.1. By virtue of the same, it can be safely inferred that 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was not kidnapped by the accused. If really 2 nd respondent/ defacto complainant was kidnapped, question of L.Ws.2 to 4 (brothers of 2 nd respondent) coming to know of the same would not have gone to the house of A.1 and at the same time, after negotiations of the accused, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant would not have been let off immediately. It is not the case of prosecution that the petitioners beat 2nd respondent/defacto complainant. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, none of the offences that have been mentioned in the charges would attract. In view of the aforesaid reasons, continuation of the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners/ A.1, A.4 and A.5 is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 11. The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No.447 of 2022 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are hereby quashed as against the petitioners/A.1, A.4 and A.5 are concerned. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.