CRLP/15322/2013 of Jinka Sivashanker Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seekingquashing of investigation in Crime No.303 of 2013 of Jammalamadugu(U) Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, registered for the offencespunishable under Sections 420, 468 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

The allegations in the report are as under:

The second respondent herein is a retired Survey DeputyInspector. While the second respondent was working inJammalamadugu (V), accused Nos.1 and 2, who are residents ofSirigepally (V), have approached him for measurement of theiragriculture field. Since then, the accused developed relationship withthe second respondent. On 18.04.2012 the second respondent hereinsold his land to an extent of Ac.0.67 cents to one Yeturi RamachandraReddy @ Rs.80,000/- per cent and received Rs. 13,40,000/- asadvance sale consideration. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being aware aboutthe said fact, approached the second respondent requesting him togive them a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for securing employment to the sonof the second respondent in railway department. Believing therepresentation made by accused Nos.1 and 2 and in view of theirfriendship, the second respondent paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on03.10.2012, Rs.18,00,000/- on 05.10.2012 in the presence ofwitnesses. About nine days thereafter, the accused approached thesecond respondent stating that Rs.20,00,000/- was not sufficient forsecuring job and sought a further sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Believing theirrepresentation, he got transferred a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- to the account of the accused through online. They requested the secondrespondent to advance a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- for purchase of a housewhich was being sold for a sum of Rs.34,00,000/-, when the marketvalue is Rs.50,00,000/-. The second respondent is alleged to havewithdrawn the said amount and paid the same to accused Nos.1 and 2 on 21.12.2012. In similar manner they are alleged tohave extracted some more money in the year 2013. Whenever thesecond respondent was enquiring about the job of his son, theaccused were giving evasive answers and were postponing therepayment of the said amount. In the month of May, 2013, the accusedapproached the second respondent stating that if the remainingamount is paid, the house at Proddutur will be registered, as the owneris pressurizing for payment of balance amount. The secondrespondent is alleged to have gone to one Y.Ramachandra Reddy andreceived Rs.5,00,000/- from him and paid the same to accused on18.05.2013. He took a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and gave the sameto accused No.2 on 05.06.2013. While receiving the amount, theaccused are alleged to have told him to pay the balance amount ofRs.15,00,000/- on the date of registration of the property.

It is thus alleged that the accused have collected a sum ofRs.31,00,000/- from the second respondent with a promise to securejob to the son of the second respondent in the railway department anda sum of Rs.19,00,000/- and bonds worth Rs.15,00,000/- towardspurchase of house in Proddutur. Inspite of repeated requests, theaccused were procrastinating the repayment on one pretext or theother. When the second respondent insisted for payment of money,the accused are alleged to have threatened him with direconsequences stating that they would kill him if the same is informedto others. Basing on these allegations, the above case came to beregistered.

Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submits that it is

Arguments

highly unbelievable to accept the version of the second respondent. According to him, the second respondent, who is a highly educatedperson, would not have paid so much of money to the accused withoutverification and ascertaining the facts from the vendor of the house atProddutur. It is further contended that the allegation of takingpromissory notes towards the transaction of the house is absolutelyfalse and the same is invented only for the purpose of the case. In anyview he submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil innature.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutoropposed the application.

The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, or under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash acomplaint, even before completion of investigation, is limited. The law laid down, in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal[[1]], which has beenfollowed in several other judgments of the Supreme Court, is thatinterference is permissible in cases (a) where the allegations made inthe FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value andaccepted in their entirety, do not, prima facie constitute any offence ormake out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in theFIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclosea cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officersunder Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of aMagistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) wherethe uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, andthe evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose thecommission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurdand inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent personcan ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground forproceeding against the accused; and (e) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding ismaliciously instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeanceon the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private andpersonal grudge. The Supreme Court further held that the power ofquashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparinglyand with circumspection, and that too in the rarest of rare cases; theCourt will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to thereliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in theFIR or the complaint; the extraordinary or inherent powers do notconfer arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim orcaprice; and even if a complaint has been laid only on account ofpersonal animosity that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard thecomplaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested andweighed after the evidence is collected.

The High Court should not exercise its power to repress or stifle

The High Court should not exercise its power to repress or stifle a legitimate prosecution. (State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa[[2]]). Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, or under Section 482Cr.P.C, has to be exercised with care. (G. Sagar Suri v. State ofU.P.,[[3]];State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy[[4]]). The powerspossessed by the High Court thereunder are very wide, and the veryplenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The HighCourt, being the highest court of a State, should normally refrain fromgiving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts areincomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not beencollected and produced before the Court and the issues involved,whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in theirtrue perspective without sufficient material. (Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary[[5]]and Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar[[6]]).

At first blush the allegations in the report appeared to be civil innature, but a close perusal of the same proved to be otherwise. A

reading of the report would clearly disclose that the accused becamefriendly with the second respondent-informant and in the guise offriendship collected huge amounts from the second respondentpromising him to get a house at a cheaper rate. Apart from that theymade the second respondent to part with huge amount on the groundthat the son of the second respondent will get a job in Indian Railwaysif some amount is spent. Believing the representations made by theaccused, the second respondent was inducted to part with hugeamount.

The First Information Report also discloses that when the secondrespondent-complainant asked the accused for repayment of themoney, both the accused are alleged to have threatened him with direconsequences. The report further disclose that these accused forciblytook the signature of the second respondent on a Non-Judicial stamppaper of Rs.100/- and also on three promissory notes which were usedfor some other purpose. The present crime is came to be registeredonly in the month of October, 2013 and immediately thereafter thepresent petition is filed, giving no time for the police to investigate intothe matter. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the reporthave to be investigated by the police. Since the averments in thereport prima facie constitute the offences punishable under Sections420, 468 and 506 IPC, I am of the view that the inherent power underSection 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to interdict the investigation atthreshold.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal Petition stands no meritsand the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingshall stand closed.

30.12.2013gkv

[1]AIR 1992 SC 604[2](2002) 3 SCC 89[3](2000) 2 SCC 636[4](1977) 2 SCC 699[5](1992) 4 SCC 305[6]AIR 1964 SC 1

____________________C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J