Allowed

Chakka Raja Rao v. The State of A.P

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Nov 2022CRLP/7283/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC against three accused who induced a complainant to execute documents promising land construction. The court held that since a Lok Adalat award was passed involving full settlement and payment, continuing the trial was oppressive and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal proceedings against Accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.20 of 2018.

Chakka Raja Rao Vs The State of A.P — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.7283 OF 2018

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused No.1 to 3 in C.C.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem. A private complaint was filed by the second respondent against the petitioners and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 468, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant and witnesses, has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against petitioners/A1 to A3 and A7 only.

¶5

The accusations made against the petitioners are that the complainant is a retired Head Master at M.P. Elementary School, Veluturuvarigudem. He purchased Ac.0.26 cents of site from out of his retirement benefits and obtained plan from the Panchayat, Jangareddygudem for construction of Apartment. After completion of slab in ground

¶6

¶7

floor, the amount was exhausted, then the Accused No.7 approached the Complainant and promised him that he would complete the two stair building, so that he has to give Rs.1,48,00,000/- to him and he would bring the said amount from the Petitioners herein. Thereafter, the petitioners along with Accused No.7 obtained the signatures of the complainant on some stamp papers by believing him that they would pledge the site for completion of the Apartment and on the basis of the said document, A2 and A3 obtained sale deed in respect of the schedule property. On knowing the same, the petitioner filed Civil and Criminal cases against the petitioners and other accused.

¶8

After conducting enquiry, the Magistrate had

¶9

taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the complainant wants to show that A1 filed a suit against him and others for recovery of debt under promissory note and he was induced to deliver promissory notes, non-Judicial stamps and blank cheques with a false promise that the two storied building will be completed by A1 to A3 and A7. Basing on the said accusations, the learned

¶10

¶11

Magistrate came to conclusion that there are prima facie accusations made against the petitioners and A7 for the offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate further opined that it is desirable to go deep into the case, since there is a prima facie case made out against the A1 to A3 and A7 and that there is no offence made out against the A4 to A6 for any of the offences alleged.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code only. He also submitted that on 30.11.2015, an Award was passed in the Lok Adalat, wherein the parties are compromised in respect of the dispute in between them. By virtue of the compromise, the amounts have been paid to the accused by the Defacto-Complainant along with 15% interest. By suppressing the same, the Defacto-Complainant filed the present complaint as against the petitioners herein.

¶13

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that certain papers, promissory notes, non-judicial stamps and blank cheques

¶14

¶15

were taken with false promise to complete the two storied building by A1 to A3 and A7, but the same has not been completed. In view of these disputes, the question of facts have to be decided in the course of the trial only and prays to dismiss this Petition.

¶16

Heard. Perused the record.

¶17

Admittedly, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 406, 409, 468, 120-B of IPC have not been made out against the petitioners herein. A2 is son of A1. A7 approached the complainant while the construction of Apartment was going on, in the complainant site. A1 to A3 and A7 induced the complainant that they would complete the construction of Apartment and in respect of that, they need financial assistance. Upon which, the complainant went to the SubRegistrar’s office with A1 to A3 and A7 and managed the SubRegistrar, Jangareddygudem and he signed on some other papers, put his thumb marks before the Sub-Registrar Office. It is also alleged that A7 has obtained 15 signed blank cheques and empty promissory notes and 100 rupees non-

¶18

¶19

Judicial blank signed stamped papers from the complainant. After the knowledge of the alleged registration of the sale deed, the complainant filed Civil suit vide O.S.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Kovvur for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 31.12.2010 against A2 and A3 and obtained injunction order against A2 and A3 not to interfere with the possession of the complainant and also not to alienate the property. Subsequent to the said Order, both the parties compromised before the Lok adalat on 30.11.2015 and accordingly an Award was passed. The Award may be read as part and parcel of the said Order. In pursuant to the Award passed, it is submitted that an amount of Rs.87,50,000/- was paid to the Defacto-Complainant herein with 15% interest. When such is the case, the complainant having compromised with the Petitioners herein, the question of filing the present complaint by suppressing the Award passed by the Lok adalat is un-becoming.

¶20

To attract an offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, there should be dishonest intention. Cheating as

¶21

¶22

defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, reads as follows:

¶23

“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”.”

¶24

On a perusal of the entire case on hand, it is evident that both the parties compromised by virtue of Award passed in Lok Adalat. By virtue of the Lok Adalat award, the complainant was paid entire amount along with 15% interest. Ignoring the said fact, the complainant has resorted to file the present complaint. There is no dispute regarding passing of Award by the Lok Adalat and recording of the compromise between both the complainant and the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the continuation of proceedings as against the petitioners would be oppressive.

¶25

¶26

Basing on the entire factual aspects of the complaint, there is no material to proceed against the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be compelled to undergo the rigmarole of trial. Thereby, continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddygudem is nothing but abuse of process of the Court.

¶27

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners, who are Accused No.1 to 3, in C.C.No.20 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangareddigudem.

¶28

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶29

___________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶30

Date:16.11.2022 Mnr

¶31

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶33

Criminal Petition No.7283 OF 2018

¶34

Date: 16.11.2022

¶35

Mnr

Chakka Raja Rao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chakka Raja Rao v. The State of A.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Puneetha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vasavi Pharam Market Complex Welfare Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinka Ashok Kumar at Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs Chinka Dhana Lakshmi

Chadarla Narasimha Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Palakunta Harendra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Palakolu Rajeswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh