Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 984 (AP)

P. Rajani Kumari v. State of A. P.

2024-08-06

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.276 of 2018 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram (Urban) East Godavari District. 2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the 2nd respondent owns a land to an extent of 155, 502 and 507 Sq.yards in R.S.No.312/1, 312/1A near RTC complex road and he also obtained electrical connection service on the said land and continuously paying the electricity bills and he is in peaceful possession of the said land. While so, the accused Nos.1 to 3 and some others trespassed into the said land highhandedly on 17.10.2018 at about 8 P.M. at RTC complex road, Rajamahendravaram caused damage to the electric meter, tried to raise construction and also threatened with dire consequences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein are innocents and a false case has been foisted against them. The 1st petitioner herein is mother of 2nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner is absolute owner of the subject property. On 20.12.2013, the petitioners herein obtained injunction orders on the alleged property along with other properties against the 2nd respondent and others, in O.S.No.380 of 2013 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavri District. On 16.11.2017, when the 2nd respondent and their men violated the said injunction orders, on the complaint made by the petitioners herein, a case in Cr.No.402 of 2017 was registered against the 2nd respondent herein. When the police did not taken any action, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.No.30127 of 2018 which was disposed of directing that the investigation being completed by the police and filed a report within a period of two (2) months. The petitioners herein also filed E.P.No.56 of 2017 in O.S.No.380 of 2013 for violation of the injunction orders before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram against the 2nd respondent. The petitioners herein also got police protection orders from this Court in C.R.P.No.1438 of 2018 on 06.07.2018 and further stated that under the above mentioned circumstances the present complaint is registered as against the petitioner, which is purely a false case and prays to allow the petition. 4. None appeared for the 2nd respondent. 5. The petitioners herein also got police protection orders from this Court in C.R.P.No.1438 of 2018 on 06.07.2018 and further stated that under the above mentioned circumstances the present complaint is registered as against the petitioner, which is purely a false case and prays to allow the petition. 4. None appeared for the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506 read with 34 of 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 petitioners in Crime No.276 of 2018 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram (Urban), East Godavari District 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. 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. 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 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. (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. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 11. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2018, the petitioners herein along with accused No.2 trespassed into the land of de-facto complainant/2nd respondent and threatened them highhandedly. 12. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the copies of judgment and decree in O.S.No.380 of 2013 and E.P.No.56 of 2017 filed for violation of injunction orders and also order copy in C.R.P.No.1438 of 2018 were filed. A Perusal of the documents, clearly reveals that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject property and they also obtained injunction orders from the Court and on violation of the said orders, the petitioners herein also preferred writ petition before this Court and also filed Execution Petition for violation of injunction orders. 13. 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. 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.” 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. 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. 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. 14. 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. 14. In the instant case, when the subject property is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein, they themselves trespassing into their land and threatening the 2nd respondent herein does arise and the complete record clearly shows that in order to wreck vengence against the petitioners herein, the present complaint came to be filed by the 2nd respondent herein, which cannot be entertained. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed. 15. 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 petitioners/accused No.1 and 3 or to pressurize them to settle the civil disputes. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused would amount to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in Crime No.276 of 2018 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban, East Godavari District against the petitioners/accused No.1 and 3. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.