Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 778 (AP)

Jami Sriramulu v. State Of A. P.

2024-07-13

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). 2. Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating that he is resident of Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal, purchased Ac-0.19 ½ cents of land in Sy.No.242/1 in Dwarapudi Village from his villager Puli Radha, W/o Appanna and got registered the same in the name of his daughter i.e. Boddula Uma Barathi on 10.06.2014, since then the daughter of de-facto complainant is enjoying the said land, and on the southern side of the said land, the accused land is situated. LW4, who is carrying out the farming activities to the said land, on 30.05.2016 came to know that the accused got ploughed his land along with de-facto complainant’s daughter land with a tractor and demolished southern land bund of de-facto complainant’s daughter and occupied it. On that, LW4 rushed to the spot, noticed the same, and questioned the accused about his acts, for which the accused replied that the land does not belong to the daughter of the de-facto complainant and the same is belongs to his relatives and further threatened that if he raise the issue anywhere else, he will lodge a report against the complainant and LW4, as if they abused him by touching his caste name. On that, the de-facto complainant along with LW5 and one Thaddi Srinivasa Rao visited the spot, noticed the same and presented the report to the police. Basing on the report given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Cr.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram. 3. The present petition is filed to quash the said C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the ground that the de-facto complainant is highly influenced person both politically and financially and he is Ex-Sarpanch of Dwarapudi Village and is close relative of Ex-Minister of Andhra Pradesh. 3. The present petition is filed to quash the said C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the ground that the de-facto complainant is highly influenced person both politically and financially and he is Ex-Sarpanch of Dwarapudi Village and is close relative of Ex-Minister of Andhra Pradesh. The de-facto complainant is doing several businesses and with an evil intention to grab the petitioner’s land, which is ancestral property, the de-facto complainant is harassing the petitioner both physically and mentally. It is further submitted that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac-0.39 cents in S.No.242/1. The pattadar passbooks and title deeds also stand in the name of petitioner. There are several criminal cases pending against the de-facto complainant. The petitioner is paying cists to the Government for the land possessed by him. The de-facto complainant by influencing the police officials, wilfully lodged a false case against the petitioner. It is further stated that when the de-facto complainant tried to trespass into the subject property, the petitioner have also preferred a civil suit vide O.S.No.354 of 2016 before learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and in that suit temporary injunction was granted in favour of petitioner. Even though temporary injunction was granted, the de-facto complainant tried to interfere with the subject property, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the police, but no action was taken. It is further stated that the entire case facts clearly shows that the petitioner is an absolute owner of the land and in order to harass the petitioner herein the de-facto complainant lodged a false case. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 4. None appeared for the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant though notice was served. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition. 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 proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” The present petition has been filed 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. 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. In “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 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. (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. (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. 11. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 12. The main allegation made in the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant is that, he purchased the land to an extent of Ac-0.19.5 cents in Sy.No.242/1 in Dwarapudi Village from his villager one Puli Radha in the name of his daughter Boddula Uma Barathi on 10.06.2014 and since then he along with his daughter has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and it is alleged that the accused trespassed into the said land and threatened and demolished southern land bund. Hence, report came to be lodged against the petitioner herein. 13. Hence, report came to be lodged against the petitioner herein. 13. It is evident from the record that the petitioner herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.354 of 2016 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram against the de-facto complainant and his henchmen, seeking permanent injunction restraining them from ever interfering with the land of the petitioner and in the said suit temporary injunction was also granted vide I.A.No.1367 of 2016 with respect to land in an extent of Ac-0.19 ½ cents covered in Sy.No.242/1 and to an extent of Ac-0.08 cents in Sy.No.242/26 of Dwarapudi Village, whereas the recitals of the charge sheet shows that the petitioner herein trespassed into the above land and threatened the de-facto complainant/2nd respondent and others by touching his caste. Therefore, it is clear that the civil suit is pending between the petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent. 14. The fact of pendency of civil suit clearly establishes the fact that the dispute is purely civil in nature and conversion of such civil dispute giving colour of criminal offence is abuse of process of Court. Having lost the civil suit, the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant converting the civil dispute into criminal, which cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments. In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 ” the Apex Court held as follows: “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the 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.” 15. In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673” the Apex Court held that, 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. 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. 16. In “Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679” the Apex Court held that when civil suit is pending where the ownership of the property has to be decided in the pending suit as the same is subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil litigation, criminal proceedings cannot be primarily prosecuted. 17. In the instant case also a suit vide O.S.No.354 of 2016 is pending between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. Therefore, it can be said that the dispute which is civil in nature 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. Even if the complaint allegations are taken into consideration, one cannot conclude prima facie, that the petitioners/accused had committed the alleged offences. Since the dispute is civil in nature, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceedings ought not have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interests of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. 18. In view of the above discussion, 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 a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the petitioner/accused or to pressurize them to settle the civil disputes. 18. In view of the above discussion, 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 a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the petitioner/accused or to pressurize them to settle the civil disputes. So far as, the allegation that the accused threatened the de-facto complainant that he would lodge a complaint stating that the de-facto complainant abused him by touching his caste name is concerned, it is to be noted that there is no prima facie evidence or material available on record to substantiate the said allegation. As already noted above, since the dispute is purely civil in nature and there being no prima-facie evidence in proof of the above allegation, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 19. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.987 of 2016 on the file of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram against the petitioner/accused. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.