CRLP/3656/2020 of VIJAY MITTAL Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code(forshort “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.696 of 2020 on the file ofthe PM. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offencespunishableunder Sections 363, 447, 427, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC.

2. The petitioner herein is accused and the respondent No.2is the de-factocomplainant.TherespondentNo.2hasfiledacomplaintdated29.07.2020 before the P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnamallegingthat on 29.07.2020, at about 11.00 A.M.four persons at the behest of thepetitioner had kidnapped the de-facto complainant fromhis residence/workplace situatedin Sy.No.58/2A & 2B of Paradesipalembelongingto oneMr.S.R.Niranjan and thereafter, the kidnappers left the de-factocomplainant atAnandapuram andthreatenedhimto vacatetheresidential/work placeimmediately. Thereafter, on his return to his residence he found that all hisbelonging were destroyed, for which the de-facto complainant hadsustained aloss of Rs.20,000/-. The case of the petitioner is that earlier on 09.06.2016the de-facto complainant had fileda complainant, stating that on 05.06.2016the petitioner along with one Mr. C.L.Mittal, the father of the petitioner hereinhad visited the subject site along with their laboursand threatened the de-facto complainant with weapons and warned the de-facto complainant tovacate the aforesaid site. Basing on the complaint dated 09.06.2016, thepolice after due investigation and as per the orders of the Commissioner ofPolice,MathuravadaSub-Division,VisakhapatnamvideC.No.162/Refer/ACP-North/2017, dated 31.03.2017 has referredthe case as'Civil in Nature'. But, however, in spite of the same, on the same allegations,the de-facto complainant hadonceagainfiled another complaint dated29.07.2020, before the P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, which wasregistered vide FIR.No.696 of 2020 and thesame is being challenged in thepresent criminal petition.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner whilereiteratingcontentionsraisedinthepetitionhasfurther contendedthatoriginally the subject site is under the possession of one Mr. S.R.Niranjan,thereafter,duetoinneedof fundsMr.S.R.NiranjanhadexecutedaRegistered Agreement of Sale cum GPA bearing Doc.No.1403/2007 dated30.03.2007at SRO, Madurawadain favour of the petitionerforasaleconsideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and thereafter on payment of the total saledeed was also executed in favour of the petitioner herein with regard toanextent of Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.58/2A and Ac.0.28 centsin Sy.No.58/2B,totaling an extent of Ac.0.50 centsin ParadesipalemVillage &Mandal,Visakhapatnam and since then the petitionerisin the possessionof thesubject property. But, however, the de-facto complainant, who claims to bewatchman of the scheduled property have filed the present complaint withouthaving any legal right over the said property.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor submits that there are allegations as against the petitionerin the complaint. He submits that the provisions of law indicated in the chargesheet may be looked into by the Court to come to a just conclusion with regardto the culpability of thepetitioner. As such,thispetitionisliabletobedismissed.Public Prosecutor submits that there are allegations as against the petitionerin the complaint. He submits that the provisions of law indicated in the chargesheet may be looked into by the Court to come to a just conclusion with regardto the culpability of thepetitioner. As such,thispetitionisliabletobedismissed.

5. When the petition came up for admission on 07.09.2020, this court haspassed the following order:

“...Meanwhile,there shall be stay of all furtherproceedingsin Cr.No.696 of 2020,dated 29.07.2020, of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam."dated 29.07.2020, of P.M.Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam."

6. Havingheardthesubmissionsmadebythelearnedcounselrepresenting both parties and on perusal of the material available on record,the point that arises for consideration is as follows: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 FiR.No.696 of 2020, before[the][ P.M.]PalemPoiice Station, Visakhapatnam, are liabie 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 anorder can lawfully be made,it must be carried out;[otherwise]it would beuseless 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]powerspossessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercisedsparingly in exceptional cases and this power is externalin nature to meet theends of justice.

8. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under[ 482][ of]Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Courtin longlineof perspectivepronouncements, which are as follows:Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Courtin longlineof perspectivepronouncements, which are as follows:

In “RP. Kapur v. State of Punjab^”, the Apex Court[laid][ down][ the]following principles:

‘(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings[against][ an][ accused]mayamount to the abuse of the process of the court or[that][ the][ quashing][ of]the impugned proceedings would secure the ends ofjustice;

(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institutionor continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (Hi) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the complainttaken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute theoffence alleged; and

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there is either nolegal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails toprove the charge. ”

9. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the HighCourt to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the process of Court.In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quashthe proceedingsis called for only in cases where the complaint does notdisclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.If the allegationsset out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of whichcognizanceistaken by the Magistrateit is open to the High Court to quash thesameinexerciseof the inherent powers under Section482.Itisnot,however,necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before thetrial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complainthas 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 theoffence/offences are disclosed, and thereis no materialto showthatthecomplaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would benojustification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in“Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^”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 quashthe proceedingsis called for only in cases where the complaint does notdisclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.If the allegationsset out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of whichcognizanceistaken by the Magistrateit is open to the High Court to quash thesameinexerciseof the inherent powers under Section482.Itisnot,however,necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before thetrial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complainthas 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 theoffence/offences are disclosed, and thereis no materialto showthatthecomplaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would benojustification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in“Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^”

10. In‘State of Haryanav. BhajanLal3» the Apex Court consideredindetail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the HighCourt to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized thedetail the powers of High Court under Section 482 and the power of the HighCourt to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Apex Court summarized the ^ AIR 1990 SC 494^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335^ 1992 Supp (1) see 335

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 prime 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[ 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 madein the FIR or complaint[and]theevidence 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]ispermitted 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 thereis an express legal bar engrafted in[any][ of][ the]provisionsof the Codeor the concerned Act (under[which]acriminalproceeding 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.

Keeping in view the above principles,I would like to examine the caseon hand.

11. On a perusal of the complaint dated 29.07.2020, filed by the de-factocomplainant,it can be seen that the petitioner herein have entered into anAgreement of Sale-Cum-GPA along with one Mr. Sesham Rao, on 30.03.2007with regard to the suit scheduled property and thereafter, on payment of thetotal sale consideration, a sale deed was also executedin favour of thepetitioner herein with regard to extent of Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.58/2A andAc.0.28centsinSy.No.58/2B,totalinganextentofAc.0.50centsinParadesipalemVillage&Mandal,Visakhapatnamandsincethenthepetitioner is also in the possession of the subject property. The case of thepetitioner is that earlier on 09.06.2016, when the de-facto complainant hadfiled a complainant, stating that on 05.06.2016, the petitioner along withoneMr. C.L.Mittal, the father of the petitioner herein had visited the subject sitealong with their labours, they have threatened the de-facto complainant withweapons and warned the de-facto complainant to vacate the aforesaid site.Basing on the complaint dated 09.06.2016, the police after due investigationand as per the orders of the Commissioner of Police,MathuravadaSubDivision,Visakhapatnam,videC.No.162/Refer/ACP-North/2017,dated31.03.2017 has referred the case as ‘Civil in Nature’. But, however, in spite ofthe same, on the same allegations, the de-facto complainant[had]once againfiled another complaint dated 29.07.2020,before theP.M.PalemPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam, which was registered vide FIR.No.696 of 2020.complainant,it can be seen that the petitioner herein have entered into anAgreement of Sale-Cum-GPA along with one Mr. Sesham Rao, on 30.03.2007with regard to the suit scheduled property and thereafter, on payment of thetotal sale consideration, a sale deed was also executedin favour of thepetitioner herein with regard to extent of Ac.0.22 cents in Sy.No.58/2A andAc.0.28centsinSy.No.58/2B,totalinganextentofAc.0.50centsinParadesipalemVillage&Mandal,Visakhapatnamandsincethenthepetitioner is also in the possession of the subject property. The case of thepetitioner is that earlier on 09.06.2016, when the de-facto complainant hadfiled a complainant, stating that on 05.06.2016, the petitioner along withoneMr. C.L.Mittal, the father of the petitioner herein had visited the subject sitealong with their labours, they have threatened the de-facto complainant withweapons and warned the de-facto complainant to vacate the aforesaid site.Basing on the complaint dated 09.06.2016, the police after due investigationand as per the orders of the Commissioner of Police,MathuravadaSubDivision,Visakhapatnam,videC.No.162/Refer/ACP-North/2017,dated31.03.2017 has referred the case as ‘Civil in Nature’. But, however, in spite ofthe same, on the same allegations, the de-facto complainant[had]once againfiled another complaint dated 29.07.2020,before theP.M.PalemPoliceStation, Visakhapatnam, which was registered vide FIR.No.696 of 2020.

12. Admittedly, the said Mr. Sesham Rao, in need of money had[ executed]anAgreementofSale-Cum-GPAbearingDoc.No. 1403/2007dated30.03.2007 at SRO, Madurawada, in favour of the petitioner for a valid saleconsiderationofRs.25,00,000/- andonpaymentof theaforesaidsaleconsideration,a sale deed was executedin favour of thepetitioner andthereon the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. But, however.anAgreementofSale-Cum-GPAbearingDoc.No. 1403/2007dated30.03.2007 at SRO, Madurawada, in favour of the petitioner for a valid saleconsiderationofRs.25,00,000/- andonpaymentof theaforesaidsaleconsideration,a sale deed was executedin favour of thepetitioner andthereon the petitioner is in possession of the subject property. But, however.

the de-facto complainant, who claims to be the watchman[of][ the][ scheduled]property on 09.06.2016, had lodged a complaint against[the][ petitioner][ and][ his]father with regard to the altercation that took place[on][ 05.06.2016,][ with][ regard]to the possession and ownership of the scheduled property,[wherein,]thepolice after due investigation and as per the orders[of][ the][ Commissioner][ of]PoliceMathuravadaSub-Division,VisakhapatnamvideC.No.162/Refer/ACP-North/2017, dated 31.03.2017 has[referred][ the][ case][ as]‘Civil in Nature’. Despite the same, the de-facto complaint[had][ once][ again]lodged a similar complaint dated 29.07.2020. Admittedly,[when]thePoliceafter due investigation and as per the orders of the[Commissioner][ of][ Police,]Mathuravada vide orders dated 31.03.2017, has referred[the][ earlier] complaintdated 09.06.2016, as civil in nature, in such a case[the][ de-facto][ complaint][ has]nolocus standi to file the present complaint dated 29.07.2020,[alleging][ the]sameoffences is nothing but abuse of process of law and[as][ such,][ this][ Court]feels it appropriate to quash the proceedings in FIR.No.696[of][ 2020][ on][ the][ file]of the P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam.

13. In view of the same, the proceedings in FIR.No.696[of][ 2020][ on][ the][ file]of the P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed.of the P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam, are hereby quashed.

14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending,if any,inthispetitionshallstandclosed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAOASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

To.

1. The Station House Officer, PM Palem Police Station,Visakhapatnam.

2. One CC to Sri Vikram Pooserla, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri N.H.Akbar, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

5. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.3656 of 2020

ALLOWING THE CRLP

SP50 7 MAR 2025m.Current Section.

<,1^