Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 47 (AP)

Haneef Moinuddin Shaik v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-06

V.SUJATHA

body2025
ORDER : V.Sujatha, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in Crime.No.335 of 2020 of Mutyalareddypalli Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban District for the offence registered under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short (“I.P.C”). 2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 & 2 and the 2 nd respondent herein is the de-facto complainant. The 2 nd respondent herein lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners/A1 & A2 along with A3 induced her and her friend by name one M. Sujatha to purchase the land situated in an extent of 104.16 ankanams at plot No.130 in Sy.No.557 of Peruru Village, Tirupathi Rural and received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her and her friend and the petitioners/A1 & A2 executed agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020 by promising them that they will execute register sale deed for the said land and the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 10.09.2020. But, the petitioners/A1 & A2 did not register the subject land in favour of the de-facto complainant and her friend, and registered the same to others. It is further alleged that petitioners/A1 & A2 neither return the amount nor registered the land to the de-facto complainant and her friend and cheated them by registering the plot in the name of others before the due date of execution of sale. Hence, the present FIR was filed. 3. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd, vague and the petitioner/accused Nos. 1 & 2 have been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that an agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020 was entered into between the petitioners/A1 & A2 and the 2 nd respondent and her friend, one M. Sujatha, to purchase the plot to an extent of 104.16 ankanams in Gazetted Officers, Co-operative Building Society in Sy.No.557 of Peruru Grama Panchayat for consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- and paid 5,00,000/- as advance on the very same day and agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration within one and half month i.e., on or before 10.09.2020. It is further submitted that, the de-facto complainant and her friend failed to pay the balance of consideration within the stipulated time frame under the agreement. It is further submitted that, the de-facto complainant and her friend failed to pay the balance of consideration within the stipulated time frame under the agreement. According to the agreement if the balance amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the same will be forfeited. It is further submitted that the complaint does not disclose that the petitioners had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of entering into the agreement, and in the absence of any such culpable intention, the filing of a complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC is not maintainable. Additionally, the 2 nd respondent herein and her friend already filed a suit vide O.S.No.2 of 2021 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. The present case is filed only with the sole intention of settling a civil dispute. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 4. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Nos.1 & 2, Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/de- facto complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1 st respondent. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Section 420 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 petitioner s in crime No.335 of 2020 at Mutyalareddypalli Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban District, Vizianagaram, is 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. 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. was 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. 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 the petitioners/A1 & A2 induced the de-facto complainant and her friend one M. Sujatha to purchase their land to an extent of 104.16 ankanams at plot No.130 in Sy.No.557 of Peruru Village, Tirupathi Rural, for a consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. After collecting the money in advance before registering a site by way of executing an agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020, the petitioners/A1 & A2 cheated the de-facto complainant and her friend by registering the same to others, before the due date of registration of sale. Hence, report came to be lodged against the petitioners/A1 & A2 herein. 13. After collecting the money in advance before registering a site by way of executing an agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020, the petitioners/A1 & A2 cheated the de-facto complainant and her friend by registering the same to others, before the due date of registration of sale. Hence, report came to be lodged against the petitioners/A1 & A2 herein. 13. It is evident from the record that the de-facto complainant herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.2 of 2021 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, against petitioners herein, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale pertaining to complaint schedule property, by receiving the balance amount pursuant to an agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020. Therefore, it is clear that the civil suit is pending between the petitioners herein and the 2 nd respondent and her friend and the present criminal case is filed with an intention to settle the civil dispute by pressurizing the petitioners herein. 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 availed an alternative remedy, the de-facto complainant has lodged the present complaint 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 2 nd 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 as 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. 18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that as 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 initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime.No.335 of 2020 of Mutyalareddypalli Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban District. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.