Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 701 (AP)

Vaddavalli Ajaya Ghosh v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-06-26

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : 1. 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. 1 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4, and respondent No. 2 herein is the defacto-complainant. Respondent No. 2 along with other farmers used to borrow fertilizers from the shop of petitioner No. 4 and there were money transactions between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 with regard to fertilizers. In that connection, respondent No. 2-defacto complainant executed a promissory note in the name of the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 4 i.e. petitioner No. 1 in the presence of petitioners 2 and 3. While things stood thus, on 25.04.2016, respondent No. 2 received a legal notice from petitioner No. 1 alleging that respondent No. 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 27.04.2015 by executing a promissory note. After several demands, as the 2nd respondent failed to repay the due amount, petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been visiting the house of respondent No. 2 for the past three months and in his absence, abused the wife of respondent No. 2 in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. On that, respondent No. 2 lodged a report against the petitioners, which is the subject matter in Cr. No. 62 of 2016 of J. Panguluru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 506 & 509 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. 3. Heard Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. 3. Heard Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4, learned Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1 and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the entire material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioners are 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, the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened his wife with dire consequences in his complaint. He also argued that as petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 18.07.2016 against respondent No. 2/defacto-complainant herein for recovery of money, vide O.S. No. 89 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, upon which respondent No. 2 lodged a report before police on 03.08.2016 by creating a false story of abusing. He also argued that the matter between the parties is a dispute of purely civil 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 Petitioners 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 petitioners. 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. 5. Refuting the same, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. 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 petitioners, 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 petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki? 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. 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. (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) 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. 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 money transactions between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 with regard to fertilizers and in that connection, respondent No. 2-defacto complainant executed a promissory note in the name of the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 4 i.e. petitioner No. 1 in the presence of petitioners 2 and 3. While so, on 25.04.2016, respondent No. 2 received a legal notice from petitioner No. 1 alleging that respondent No. 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 27.04.2015 by executing a promissory note. After several demands made by petitioner No. 1, the respondent No. 2 did not pay the due amount, 1st petitioner filed a suit on 18.07.2016 against respondent No. 2/defacto-complainant herein for the recovery of money, vide O.S. No. 89 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 lodged a report before the police on 03.08.2016 by creating a false story of forgery and abuse for the offences punishable under Sections 506 & 509 r/w 34 IPC. Section 506 IPC reads as follows: 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. Section 509 IPC deals with: 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman - Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine. 11. 11. 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) 12. 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) 13. In the instant case, in view of filing a suit in O.S. No. 89 of 2016 by petitioner No. 1 seeking recovery of money under the promissory note executed by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 made a criminal complaint against the petitioners to create pressure upon them, it shows that the dispute is in civil nature, and the same has been given colour of a criminal offence. Further, it is found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes. 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 Petitioners/Accused had committed the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 506 and 509 r/w 34 IPC. After receipt of legal notice from 1st petitioner on 25.04.2016, with regard to filing of O.S. No. 89 of 2016 for recovery of money under promissory note executed by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 lodged a report before the police on 2.08.2016, stating that for the past three months, in his absence, petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4 came and abused his wife and also threatened her with dire consequences, which establishes wreak vengeance against the petitioners and also adds the color of criminal offence to a civil dispute. Furthermore, when there is a total absence of a description of the date and time of the alleged offence of abuse, lodging a complaint by 2nd respondent with omnibus allegations that are unspecific and vague in nature, which is nothing but 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. 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. 14. 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 Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4. 15. 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 Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4. 15. Having regard to the discussion referred above, and in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the parties with regard to filing a suit in O.S. No. 89 of 2016 by petitioner No. 1, seeking recovery of money under the promissory note executed by respondent No. 2, which is the root for lodging a complaint by respondent No. 2, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 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. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. 17. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.