Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 61 (AP)

Panday Mohan Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-01-07

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

body2025
ORDER : Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.213 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. 2. Heard Sri K.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has nothing to do with the present case and is innocent. It is stated that no evidence is collected during the course of investigation by the investigating officer in this matter. Learned trial Judge took cognizance of offence under Section 420 IPC without judicial application of mind. Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the contents of the information which was presented to the police by respondent No.2, A1 only collected the amount on false promise for providing jobs in Samsung Company and Railways. It is the case of the complainant that they have deposited Rs.6 Lakhs in the account of A1. No incriminating material against the petitioner is available on record. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no identity of the petitioner by the complainant. Phone number which is referred in the complaint is not connected to the petitioner. It is the number which is available in public domain. Petitioner is running a cell shop. Learned counsel would further submit that except phone call alleged to have been received from A1, nothing is attributed against A2. The question of inducement, delivery of property does not arise against the petitioner. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. To buttress his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in A.M.Mohan vs. State represented by SHO and another , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 339] in Crl.A.No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.9598 of 2022) and Archana Rana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , [ (2021) 3 SCC 751 ] 4. Para No.13 of the A.M.Mohan (supra) reads as under:- “13. Para No.13 of the A.M.Mohan (supra) reads as under:- “13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.” 5. Para 10 of Archana Rana (supra) reads as under:- “10. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the charge- sheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. Whatever allegations are made for the offence with respect to inducement and/or even giving Rs.5,00,000/- for obtaining the job, are made against the appellant’s husband, co-accused. There are no allegations at all that the appellant herein induced the complainant to get the job and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the appellant herein. Therefore, even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, in our view, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing. Therefore, this was a fit case for the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. The High Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC.” 6. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case, since there are allegations against A2 that the complainant haven spoken with A2 and confirmed thereafter only he has given money to A1. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case, since there are allegations against A2 that the complainant haven spoken with A2 and confirmed thereafter only he has given money to A1. Learned counsel would further submit that the charge sheet filed by the Police would disclose the incriminating material against A2. Hence, it is not a fit case for quashment. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and would submit that there are ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC and prays for dismissal of the petition. Determination of the Court 8. Before delving into the instant case, it is appropriate to chalk out certain settled principles of law in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, which reads as follows; Section 482- Saving of inherent powers of High Court “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 9. The idea behind conferring inherent power to the High Court to is to meet exigencies that may likely arise where the Cr.P.C. fails to provide a specific provision, for a given issue. To put it differently, no legislative enactment can be so complete a package to deal with the procedure concerning all causes that are likely to arise. It is for this reason the Courts have certain inherent powers, in addition to the ones that are expressed by law, for the proper discharge of their functions and effective administration of justice. 10. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others , [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ] is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (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 uncontroverted 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 12. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre , [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 ] held as follows; “The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 13. The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home the accusations under the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. is to constitute the said offence, there must be deception i.e. the accused must have deceived someone; that by such deception the accused must induce a person (i) to deliver any property; or (ii) to make, alter, destroy a whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property; or (iii) that the accused must have done so dishonestly. 14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others , [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315] , a three Judge Bench of this Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. 14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others , [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315] , a three Judge Bench of this Court laid down the following principles of law:- “57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 6. We will now, carefully scan the application filed by the respondent herein which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C to consider whether the appellant is justified in taking up the contention that the allegations raised thereunder did not contain the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences or whether the respondent had made out a prima facie case for investigation. In that regard it is worthwhile to take note of the fact that the respondent herein has alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. We will refer to the ingredient to constitute such offences to consider the said question. 15. In that regard it is worthwhile to take note of the fact that the respondent herein has alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467, 468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. We will refer to the ingredient to constitute such offences to consider the said question. 15. In the back drop of the legal decisions referred (supra), the factual matrix of the present case has to be scrutinised. It is alleged against the petitioner that he is a friend of A1. A1 assured respondent No.2 that A2 can provide employment by taking amount. It is also the case of the complainant that after conforming with A2, they have believed the words of A1 and transferred an amount of Rs.13,65,000/- to the account of A1 in four spells. 16. As rightly put by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 when there is a verifiable material present in the case, the case cannot be quashed. The case in Archana Rana referred (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. The reason being in the said case, the husband of Archana Rana collected the amount. The case is lodged against her simply on the ground that she is the wife of the said accused. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is a specific case of the complainant that, A1 under the false promise to provide jobs with the help of A2 collected the amount from the complainant and others and total amount collected from the gullible public is Rs.42 lakhs. That apart in the present case, it is alleged that the complainant after confirming his issue with A2 only parted with the amounts. 17. As rightly put by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor when there is a verifiable material which requires investigation at the full length of trial, quashing a case is not countenanced. Considering the submissions made, this is not the stage to decide the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised in the present petition. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini trial to rule out the role of the Petitioner and his involvement in the present crime. 18. In that view, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.