CRLP/3049/2022 of R.Venkata Ramana, Vs The State, on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The instantpetition under Section 482of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973^ has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking quashmentof theproceedings against himin C.C.No.2572 of 2019 on thefileof theCourtofJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for the offence[under][ Section][ 420][ of][ the]Indian Penal Code, 1860^.

1for short‘Cr.P.C’2for short IPC’,2for short IPC’,

2. HeardSriK.Viswanadham,learnedcounselforthePetitionerandMs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor RespondentNo. 1/State.LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresentedthat,sinceRespondent No.2 is not available in India, notice could not be served on him.counselforthePetitionerandMs.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutorfor RespondentNo. 1/State.LearnedAssistantPublicProsecutorrepresentedthat,sinceRespondent No.2 is not available in India, notice could not be served on him.3.LearnedcounselforthePetitionerwouldsubmitthattheallegedagreement of sale is created and fabricated withan intention to grab the propertyof the Petitioner.Learned counsel would further submit thatthe Petitioner wasfalsely implicated In the present case.Even If the alleged agreement of sale Iscorrect, Respondent No.2 has to approach a competent Civil Court tor redressaland the pure civil dispute is given the colour of criminal offence. Learned counselwould finally submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitionerfor the alleged offence. Hence, prayed for quashment of theproceedings againstthe Petitioner.In support of his contention, learned counselhas placed relianceon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court In Trilok Singh and Othersvs.Satya Deo Tripathilwouldsubmitthattheallegedagreement of sale is created and fabricated withan intention to grab the propertyof the Petitioner.Learned counsel would further submit thatthe Petitioner wasfalsely implicated In the present case.Even If the alleged agreement of sale Iscorrect, Respondent No.2 has to approach a competent Civil Court tor redressaland the pure civil dispute is given the colour of criminal offence. Learned counselwould finally submit that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitionerfor the alleged offence. Hence, prayed for quashment of theproceedings againstthe Petitioner.In support of his contention, learned counselhas placed relianceon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court In Trilok Singh and Othersvs.Satya Deo Tripathil

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that thereare specificallegations leveled against the Petitioner for thecommission of the allegedoffence. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided duringinvestigation.At this stage, the proceedings against thePetitioner cannot bequashed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counselrepresenting boththe parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:representing boththe parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment[of][ the]proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.no.2572[of]2019 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate,Kurnool?

Determination by the Court

Issues

6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages thatinherent 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 ofJustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trialcourt, court of appeal or a court of revision.It must exercise its powers to do realand substantial justice, depending on the facts and[circumstances][ of][ the][ case.]These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of lawor glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.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 ofJustice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trialcourt, court of appeal or a court of revision.It must exercise its powers to do realand substantial justice, depending on the facts and[circumstances][ of][ the][ case.]These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of lawor glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

7. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must bepresent. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryanaand others v. Bhajanlai and others'* is considered as the guiding torchin theapplication of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances arespelt out as follows:present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryanaand others v. Bhajanlai and others'* is considered as the guiding torchin theapplication of Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances arespelt out as follows:

“102. Inthebackdropoftheinterpretationofthevariousrelevantprovisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of lawenunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating[to][ the][ exercise][ of]the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers underSection 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 ofany court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, thoughit may not bepossibletolaydownanyprecise,clearlydefinedandsufficientlyprovisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of lawenunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating[to][ the][ exercise][ of]the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers underSection 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 ofany court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, thoughit may not bepossibletolaydownanyprecise,clearlydefinedandsufficiently AIR 1992 SC 604

channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give anexhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should beexercised.

(1) Where the allegations madeinthefirst informationreport or thecomplaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in theirentirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a caseagainst the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials,if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizableoffence,justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of theCode except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint andtheevidencecollectedin supportof the same donotdisclosethecommission of any offence and make out a case against[the][ accused.]

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offencebut constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permittedby a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated underSection 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd andinherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent personcan everreach a just conclusion that thereis sufficient ground for proceedingagainst the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisionsof the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding isinstituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/orwhere there is a specific provisionin the Code or the concerned Act,providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended withmalafideand/or where the proceeding is maliciously Instituted with an ulterior motivefor wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due toprivate and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashingacriminal proceeding should beexercisedvery sparinglyandwithcircumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court willnot be justified in embarking upon an enquiry asto thereliability orgenuineness or otherwiseof the allegations madeintheFIRor thecomplaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do[ not confer]anarbitraryjurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. ”

(emphasis supplied)

8. It is the case of the prosecution that, Respondent No.2 along with his wife entered into an agreement with the Petitioner/Accused to purchase a land of an extent of Ac.2.75 cents in Sy.No.89/2B-1 situated near by D.No.45/306, LabourColony, Mamidalapadu Village limits for an amount of[Rs.89.00][ lakhs][ and][ paid][ an]amountofRs.26.00lakhstowardsadvancesaleconsiderationtothePetitioner/Accused on the condition that the said land would be registered afterpayment of balance sale consideration. Subsequently,[when][ Respondent][No.2]approached the Petitioner with the balance sale consideration[for][ getting][ the][ land]registeredinhis favour,the Petitioner/Accused postponedthesamewithadishonest intention.The Petitioner neither registered[the][ land][ nor][ returned][ the]advance amount and thereby cheated Respondent No.2.Further, the Petitionerhad obtained loan from State Bank of India, by mortgaging[the][ said][ land.]Assuch the present complaint has been lodged by Respondent[No.2][ against][ the]Petitioner for the alleged offence.

9. At this juncture,it is relevant to refer to Sections[415][ and 420][ IPC which]

read 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 personshallretainanyproperty, 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 oris likely[to][ cause]damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation[or property,]is said to “cheat”.

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of[property.—]Whoevercheatsandtherebydishonestlyinducesthepersondeceived to deliver any property to any person, or[to][ make,][ alter][ or]destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security,[or][ anything]which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of[being][ converted]into a valuablesecurity,shall be punished with imprisonmentofeither description for a term which may extend to seven[years,][ and]shall also be liable to fine.”

10. Perusal of the above Sections would reveal that, to hold a person guilty ofthe offence of cheating,it has to be shown that his[intention][ was][ dishonest][ at][ the]time of making the promise.Admittedly, the present dispute is with regard toexecution of an agreement of sale relating to a landed property. As rightly put bythe learned counsel for the Petitioner, there is no iota of evidence to prove thealleged agreement and thatif really there exists an agreement of sale betweenthe parties. Respondent No.2 would have approached a competent Civil Court forredressal of his grievance.It is not the case of Respondent[No.2][ that][ he][ filed][ a]civil suit for specific performance of agreement of[sale.]the offence of cheating,it has to be shown that his[intention][ was][ dishonest][ at][ the]time of making the promise.Admittedly, the present dispute is with regard toexecution of an agreement of sale relating to a landed property. As rightly put bythe learned counsel for the Petitioner, there is no iota of evidence to prove thealleged agreement and thatif really there exists an agreement of sale betweenthe parties. Respondent No.2 would have approached a competent Civil Court forredressal of his grievance.It is not the case of Respondent[No.2][ that][ he][ filed][ a]civil suit for specific performance of agreement of[sale.]

11. In Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another^ theHon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“This Court has time and again drawn attentionto the growingtendency of 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 enmitytowards the accused,or to subject the accused to harassment.Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings beforeit are notused for settling scores or to pressurise partiestosettlecivildisputes”

(emphasis supplied)

12. In the present case, a bare perusal of the allegations[leveled][ against][ the]Petitioner, would clearly go to show that no prima facie case[ is] made out againsthim for the offence alleged.Moreover,the allegationsleveledagainst thePetitioner would clearly show that the matter is of[civil][ nature][ and][ the][ same][ was]given the cloak of criminal offence.In view of the[above][ discussion][ and][ the]judgments referred to supra, this Court is of the view[that][ there][ are][ no][ ingredients]toattract the offence under Section 420I PC against[the]Petitioner/Accused.

Therefore,it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., forquashing the proceedings against the Petitioner.

13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitionis allowed quashing the proceedingsagainst the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2572 of 2019 on the file of the Court ofJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for the offence under Section 420 IPC.against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2572 of 2019 on the file of the Court ofJudicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand[closed.]

//TRUE COPY//

SDI- B.PRASADA RAO

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To.

SECTION OFFICER

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.

2. The Station House Officer, KurnoolII Town Police Station, Kurnool.

3. One CC to SRI K VISWANATHAM Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh atAmaravathi [OUT]Amaravathi [OUT]

5. THREEE CD COPIES

Pmg

TAC

HIGH COURTDATED:31/12/2024

ORDERCRLP.No.3049 of 2022

ALLOWING THE CRLP

i18 FEB 2025to,,Current decuon^s£fSPATC\i^5^