Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 151 (AP)

Vasireddy Mruthyumjayarao v. State of A. P.

2025-01-24

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : Since both the criminal petitions arose out of the same crime number, there being disposed of by this common order. 2. Criminal Petition No.7588 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners/A2 to A6, while Criminal Petition No.7506 of 2019 came to be filed by the petitioner/A1, challenging the proceedings in Crime No.190 of 2019 registered by the Alamuru Police Station, East Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-A, 509, 211 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Act, 2015. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the present petitions are that the 2 nd respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Alamuru Police Station, alleging that she is working as receptionist in Shanthi Children Hospital, Mandapeta and used to travel daily from her village Narsipudi to Mandapeta where she was working. While she is travelling from Narsipudi to Mandapet, she got acquaintance with one Vasireddy Peddayya, who is A1 in the present crime, and used to talk frequently. After some time, the Peddayya told her that he would get good job for her in Sri Ram Finance and accordingly, he got appointed the de-facto complainant as Executive in Sri Ram Finance in gold loan section and later their friendship turned into a love affair. It is further alleged that as A1 wanted to establish a business and was searching for finance, the de-facto complainant got the loan sanctioned for A1 from Sri Ram Finance in the name of Matta Raju and Veera Venkata Satyanarayana by certifying the rold gold articles as gold articles for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- at the instance of A1, but later, the said amount was not paid, because of which, the Sri Ram company recovered the same from the 2 nd respondent/de- facto complainant and also removed her from the company. Apart from that the de-facto complainant also gave an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- to A1 and later she developed physical relationship with A1 and used to spend more time with him at the house of one Jangam Saraswathi at Pulagurta, which was noticed by one of the relatives of Dekkapati Surya Prakasa Rao, who reported the matter to the parents of the de- facto complainant and raised a dispute in the presence of elders on 25.07.2019, for which all the accused threatened and undertook to settle the issue within one month. Later, when the 2 nd respondent/de-facto complainant raised an issue regarding her marriage with A1, they refused for the same and abused her in filthy language by using her caste name. On 15.10.2019 when she came to the house of one Challa Subrahmanyam and raised an issue for a marriage, the petitioners refused for the same in the presence of Challa Subbaiah, Nekkanti Rayudu (Bujji), Bunga Sanjay, Lanka Mutyala Rao, Kosana Chinna, Pasalapudi Krishna Murthy Chirra Srinivas and offered to pay compensation of Rs.25 lakhs and handed over the promissory notes, cheques and documents. But however, failed to pay the said amount of Rs.25 lakhs as per their promised period of 15 days and thereby cheated her. Hence, the complaint. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that a perusal of the contents of the complaint would not reveal the ingredients of the sections under which the crime was registered. No specific allegations attributed against the petitioners, in the absence of which, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and results into a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, they prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/de- facto complainant would contend that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners and no proceedings are quashed at the crime stage unless there are strong grounds. 7. Accordingly, they prays to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/de- facto complainant would contend that there are specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners and no proceedings are quashed at the crime stage unless there are strong grounds. 7. 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 Crime No.190 of 2019 of Alamuru Police Station, 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 9. 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.” 10. 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 therewould 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 ] ”Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 11. On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 354-A, 509, 211 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it relevant to extract the above Sections, hereunder: Section 420 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for the offence of "cheating?. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of I.P.C and it is as follows: “415. Cheating :- Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are: There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 417. 417. Punishment for cheating .—Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment .—(1) A man committing any of the following acts (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub- section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 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, 2[shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine]. False charge of offence made with intent to injure.—Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death,1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. 3. Punishments for offences atrocities. — 3[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view 12. In “ V.Y.Jose v. State of Gujarat, [ (2009) 3 SCC 78 ] ” the Apex Court laid down following ingredients to constitute cheating. “An offence of cheating cannot be said to have been made out unless the following ingredients are satisfied: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or omission; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit. For the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. An offence of cheating may consist of two classes of cases: (1) where the complainant has been induced fraudulently or dishonestly. Such is not the case here; (2) When by reason of such deception, the complainant has not done or omitted to do anything which he would not do or omit to do if he was not deceived or induced by the accused.” 13 In Swarupa Rani Ronanki Vs. State of Telangana , 2022 SCC OnLine TS 3164 , while dealing with a similar issue as in the present case, the learned Judge of the High Court of Telangana has observed as under: “8. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 having his wife living i.e., respondent No. 2, married the petitioner again. Therefore, Section 494 IPC does not attract so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is the case of the prosecution that accused No. 1 having his wife living i.e., respondent No. 2, married the petitioner again. Therefore, Section 494 IPC does not attract so far as the petitioner is concerned. Hence, this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 494 IPC would amount to abuse of process of law. No other allegations are directed or no other provisions of law are invoked in the charge sheet so far as the petitioner is concerned. Therefore, this Court considers that as a charge for proceeding with trial against the petitioner cannot be framed, it is wholly desirable to quash the proceedings as prayed for. 14. While exercising the 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 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 the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. 15. On a perusal of the material on record, the contents of the complaint and First Information Report would indicate that none of the offences alleged in the complaint are made out against the petitioners/A2 to A6 who are arrayed in Criminal Petition No.7588 of 2019. In so far as the petitioner/A1 in Criminal Petition No.7806 of 2019 is concerned, a thorough reading of the complaint and First Information Report would indicate that there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioner/A1 that though accused No.1 borrowed certain amount from the defacto complainant herein has not paid the said amount and that though he promised to marry defacto complainant, he refused to marry her stating that his family members have not agreed for the said marriage. The complaint further discloses the fact that the matter was settled in the presence of Challa Subbaiah, Nekkanti Rayudu (Bujji), Bunga Sanjay, Lanka Mutyala Rao,Kosana Chinna, Pasalapudi Krishna Murthy, Chirra Srinivas, wherein petitioner/accused No.1 has offered to pay compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- to the complainant, but as the said amount was not paid to the complainant within a period of 15 days as promised, she has filed the present complaint. But however, as the entire allegation in the complaint is only against accused No.1 and since the allegations are serious in nature, which can be determined after full-fledged trial and as such proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Since there are specific allegations attributed against the petitioner/A1, the proceedings is so far as it relates to the petitioner/A1 cannot be quashed. 16. In the result, Criminal Petition No.7588 of 2019 is allowed and the proceedings initiated against petitioners/A2 to A6 in Crime No.190 of 2019 registered by the Alamuru Police Station are quashed while dismissing Criminal Petition No.7506 of 2019. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.