Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 580 (AP)

Pratima Kumar Midha v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-04-04

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 crime No.612 of 2020 on the file of SHO, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). 2) Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint before the police alleging that she is the partner of NK Engineering Works established by her husband in the year 2014. Later, in the year 2016, petitioner No.1 herein joined as partner in her firm and they executed a partnership deed on 18.05.2016 and on the same day her husband and one Aryaman Midha (petitioner No.2 herein), who is the son of petitioner No.1, joined as Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) respectively. On 26.06.2019 at about 4.00 p.m. petitioner Nos.1 and 2 came to the house of respondent No.2 and insisted her to sign on a newly created deed of retirement, on perusing the same, she refused to sign on those papers, for which both the petitioners abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her family. When defacto complainant requested them to pay due salary of Rs.8,00,000/- to her husband and to settle the accounts, both the petitioners left the house and bore grudge against defacto complainant, and avoided her in day to day to activities of the firm. Further, the petitioners ill treated her husband. Having waited for some time, defacto complainant – respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the firm to settle her account and pay the dues, the petitioners committed forgery of her signatures and continued the transactions in the banks. Defacto complainant further alleged that the petitioners created a new deed in their favour as if defacto complainant voluntarily retired from the firm by forging her signatures on the said deed and Form V and submitted the same to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam and when she searched in the website, she has not found her name as a partner, on noticing the same, she intimated the same to her Banker and requested to stop all the transactions on behalf of NK Engineering as they are taking place without her consent. When the banker restricted the petitioners herein, they have opened another account in the name of NK Engineering work at ICICI Bank, Gandhinagar Branch with the support of new forged documents and continued the business affairs without her consent. Further, she tried to negotiate with the petitioners for an amicable settlement, but they have not come forward to settle the issue till date and that they are running the business with forged documents. Therefore, she lodged the said complaint with the police against the petitioners. The present petition has been filed to quash the Crime No.612 of 2020. 3) On 04.09.2020, when the present petition came up for hearing, this Court passed the following interim order. “……….. In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of all further proceedings.” 4) Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended from time to time. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint prima facie do not make out a case against the petitioners and all the allegations made against the petitioners are false, vague and baseless. The allegations made in the complaint do not show any intention of the petitioners at the inception to constitute the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. Mere allegation that the reconstituted deed has been forged to cheat the complainant does not amount to cheating. According to the complaint, on 29.06.2019, the petitioners visited the house of respondent No.2 and insisted her to sign on a newly created deed of retirement, but she a lodged complaint in the month of July, 2020 after an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was credited to the account maintained by the firm in the months of April and June 2020, therefore, it is clear that with a mala fide and dishonest intention, respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint. The intention of respondent No.2 is to extort money from the petitioners and make wrongful gain. The entire funds are invested by the petitioners? family and the husband of the petitioner No.1 pledged all of his properties to provide loan to the firm. Further, no investment was made by respondent No.2 or her husband in any form in the firm from the year 2016. The entire funds are invested by the petitioners? family and the husband of the petitioner No.1 pledged all of his properties to provide loan to the firm. Further, no investment was made by respondent No.2 or her husband in any form in the firm from the year 2016. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the defacto complainant filed an undertaking on 13.08.2019 stating that she is voluntarily leaving the organisation and she will repay any outstanding dues to the company as decided by continuing partners and she has also admitted in the said undertaking that there are no dues to be received from the company up to the date of retirement. But, she has filed the said complaint against the petitioners in the month of July, 2020 with false and frivolous allegations and requested to allow the petition. 7) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that respondent No.2 is a partner of NK Engineering works established by her husband in the year 2014 and that in the year 2016, petitioner No.1 entered into the firm as a partner and both of them executed a partnership deed on 18.05.2016. On 29.06.2019, the petitioners came to the house of respondent No.2 and insisted her to sign on a newly created deed of retirement, but she has refused to sign on those papers, for which the petitioners abused her in filthy language and threatened to kill her and that when she raised her voice to settle the salary of Rs.8,00,000/- due to her husband, petitioners bore grudge against respondent No.2 and avoided her in day to day to works of the firm and created a new deed in their favour by forging the signatures of respondent No.2 as if she has voluntarily retired from firm and submitted Form V to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam, however, she tried for amicable settlement, but the petitioners did not settle the issue. The acts committed by the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition. 8) Learned Public Prosecutor supported the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioners herein. The acts committed by the petitioners would constitute offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition. 8) Learned Public Prosecutor supported the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against the petitioners herein. 9) 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 Crime No.612 of 2020 on the file of the SHO, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?” POINT : 10) The petitioners filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 11) 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. 12) 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: 13) 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. 12) 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: 13) 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 ] ” 14) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand. 15) One of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners is punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. 16) Section 420 of I.P.C. deals with punishment for the offence of 'cheating'. 17) 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". 18) As per the above definition, the essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are: (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (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. 19) In “ V.Y.Jose Vs. 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. 20) 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. 21) An offence of cheating may consist of two classes of cases: (1) where the complainant has been induced fraudulently or dishonestly. 20) 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. 21) 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.” 22) As per the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 – defacto complainant is the partner of NK Engineering works established by her husband in the year 2014 and that in the year 2016, petitioner No.1 joined in the firm as partner and petitioner No.2 joined as Chief Executive Officer and that on 29.06.2019, the petitioners visited the house of respondent No.2 and insisted her to sign on a newly created deed of retirement, but when she refused to sign and demanded to settle the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- due to her husband, the petitioners committed forgery of her signatures and continued transactions in the banks and submitted Form V to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam. The complainant lodged complaint on 14.07.2020. 23) It is important to observe here that the defacto complainant submitted an undertaking on 13.08.2019, which is as follows: “To whom so ever it may concern This is to inform you that, I Smt. Saraswati Sahoo, W/o Narendra Kumar Sahoo retiring partner of M/s.N.K.Engineering Works hereby declared that during the FY 19-20 and till date of resignation. I have not received any remuneration since this is a loss making company and I have voluntarily left from this Organisation, and I will repay my outstanding dues to the company as decided with continuing partners. I have no dues to be received from this Company up to the date of retirement. SARASWATI SAHOO” 24) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – defacto complainant has not denied the aforesaid undertaking alleged to have been given by the defacto complainant. As per the said undertaking, the complainant voluntarily retired from the firm in the year 2019. Further, as per the bank statements filed by the petitioners an amount of Rs.22,41,657/- was credited into the firm account on 20.05.2020, and an amount of Rs.39,19,752/- was credited on 18.06.2020. As per the said undertaking, the complainant voluntarily retired from the firm in the year 2019. Further, as per the bank statements filed by the petitioners an amount of Rs.22,41,657/- was credited into the firm account on 20.05.2020, and an amount of Rs.39,19,752/- was credited on 18.06.2020. The present complaint was lodged on 14.07.2020. It appears that after the said amounts were deposited into the petitioners firm, the present complaint was lodged on 14.07.2020. It is evident from the material available on record that the defacto complainant having herself gave an undertaking on 13.08.2019 that she has voluntarily left the firm as the same is loss making company and she has no dues to be received from the firm. Later, having come to know that the company is getting profits, she has hatched a plan and filed the present complaint. If it is the case of the defacto complainant that the petitioners insisted her to sign on the deed of retirement on 29.06.2019, there is no necessity for the defacto complainant to submit an undertaking on 13.08.2019 stating that she has voluntarily left the company. These facts create a doubt over the allegations made in the complaint. 25) Further, the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose that the petitioners had dishonest intention at the very beginning to cheat the defacto complainant and induced her to part with any property or valuable security to constitute offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Further, the complaint is bereft of any such allegation that the petitioners had dishonest intention at the very beginning to cheat the defacto complainant to part with any property. 26) In the absence of intentional deception on the part of the petitioners/accused right from the beginning, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Filing of complaint without prima facie material that the petitioners had dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction is abuse of process of Court. Further, the prime requirement to constitute offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is that the petitioners must have dishonest intention to induce the defacto complainant to part with property at the initial stage. Further, the prime requirement to constitute offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is that the petitioners must have dishonest intention to induce the defacto complainant to part with property at the initial stage. If there is any allegation in the complaint to that effect, the question of adducing evidence and drawing inference would arise, but in the absence of such allegation, proceeding against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. is abuse of process of Court. 27) The other offences allegedly committed by the petitioners are punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. 28) Section 465 deals with 'forgery'. Section 468 deals with 'forgery for purpose of cheating'. Section 471 deals with “using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.” 29) As stated above, the defacto complainant stated in her complaint that the petitioners forged her signatures and created her retirement deed and submitted Form V to the District Registrar, Visakhapatnam. But, as per the undertaking dated 13.08.2019 given by the defacto complainant, she has voluntarily left from the organisation on the ground that the same is loss making company. Therefore, the allegation levelled by the complainant in the complaint dated 14.07.2020 that the petitioners forged her signatures and created retirement deed is not believable. Based on bald allegations, the Court cannot permit the defacto complainant to prosecute the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. 30) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. Therefore, the proceedings in the present case have to be quashed. 31) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.612 of 2020 on the file of the Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam are hereby quashed. 32) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.