Allowed

P.B.Srinivas v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024CRLP/1097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused Nos.1 to 3 sought quashing of proceedings for cheating over sale deeds executed in respect of disputed land while a civil suit was pending. Holding no deception of the complainant was alleged and the complaint cloaked a civil dispute as criminal, the High Court quashed the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 quashed in respect of accused Nos.1 to 3; interim orders made absolute and miscellaneous applications closed.

P.B.Srinivas Vs State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

(alK ..Vm
O)

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No’s: 1097 & 4473 OF 2019

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No : 1097 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.B.SRINIVAS, S/o Late Jagannadha Sanyasi Raju Aged about 55 yaers, R/o Kota Veedhi, Salur Town, Vizianagaram District

¶10

P.B. Latha, W/o P.B. Srinivas, Aged about 53 Years , R/o Kota Veedhi Salur Town, Vizianagaram District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No’s.1 & 2

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of

¶14

A.P. at Amaravathi. Through Town Police Station Salur, Vizianagaram

¶15

District.

¶16

...RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT

¶17

Raju Gowri Devi, W/o Late Viswambara Chandra Sanyasi Raju, Aged 53 Years, R/o Kota Veedhi, Salur Town, Vizianagaram District

¶18

...RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶19

The Tahsildar, Salur Mandal, Salur, Vizianagaram District

¶20

...RESPONDENT/ L.W6

¶21

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the C.C. No.390/2018 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Salur.

¶22

t *

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2niQ

¶24

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners in C.C. No.390/2018 on the file of the Hon’ble Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Salur pending disposal of the quash petition.

¶25

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2023

¶26

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition ,the High Court may be pleased to extend the earlier interim orders dated 01.10.2020 in CrI.P.No. 1097 of 2019 pending disposal the quash petition

¶27

I.A. NO: 2 OF 207.-^

¶28

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents Viz: 1. Copy of charge sheet in C.C.No. 248 of 2017 before the court of the Judicial magistrate court, Salur. 2. Copy of order in S.A.No. 297 of 2001 before the Hon’ble High court of A.P.,DT. 24-04-2009, 3. Copy of Regd. Sale Deed with translation, DT. 13-02-2006, 4. Copy of I.A.No. 1606 of 2008 in O.S.No. 30 of 2008 before the District Judge At Vizianagaram., dt. 06-06-2008, 5. Copy of common order in W.P.No.1339, 1348, 1785 etc of 2014 , dt. 06-3-2014, 6.Copy of Vizianagaram District Gazette No. 260/2015 /Vizianagaram, dt.

¶29

¶30

31-07-2015 Which are filing along with this petition in the above quash petition

¶31

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2024

¶32

Petition under Section 528 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents 1. Copy of representation to the District Registrar Stamps & Registration Department Vizianagaram, dated 27-10-2016 2.Copy representation to the District Registrar Stamps & Registration Department Vizianagaram,^dated 17-042017, 3. Copy of Sale Deed Document No. 1460 of 2015, dt. 27-06-2025, 4. Copy of Sale Deed Document No. 1461 of 2015, dt. 27-06-2015, 5. Copy Sale Deed Document No. 1462 of 2015, dt. 27-06-2015 Which are filing along with this petition in the above quash petition

¶33

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gorle Gopalakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No’s.1 & 3 and of Sri N Sravan kumar. Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶34

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4473 OF 2019

¶35

Between:

¶36

Bhogi Gowri Sankara Vara Prasad, S/o. Narayana murthy, aged about 55 yrs, R/o. Salur Town, Vizianagaram District.

¶37

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3

¶38

AND

¶39

¶40

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, Through^TownPolice Station, Salur, Vizianagaram District.

¶41

...RESPONDENT / DEFACTO- COMPLAINANT

¶42

Raja Gowri Devi, W/o. Late Viswambara Chandra Sanyasi Raju, Aged 53 years, R/ o. Kota Veedhi, Salur Town, Vizianagaram^District.

¶43

...RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶44

The Thasildar, Salur Mandal, Salur, Vizianagaram District.

¶45

...RESPONDENT/ LW6

¶46

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court Pleased to quash the CC No 390/2018 on the file of Hon,ble Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at^Salur

¶47

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶48

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 390/2018 on the file of Hon'ble Court of the Judicial magistrate of First Class at Salur, pending disposal the quash petition This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Gorle Gopalakrishna, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No’s 1 &3

¶49

The Court made the following; COMMON ORDER

¶50

[3333]

¶51

APHC010049602019

¶52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶53

TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶54

PRESENT

¶55

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶56

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1097/2019

¶57

Between:

¶58

P.b.srinivas and Others

¶59

P.b.srinivas and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitloner/accused(S):

¶60

1.GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1.SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA 2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶61

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4473/2019

¶62

Between:

¶63

Bhogi Gowri Sankara Vara Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Others Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1.GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶64

¶65

•>

¶66

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶67

The Court made the following;

COMMON ORDER:

These two Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash^C.C.No.390of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur filed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable^{underSection420} of Indian Penal Code.

¶72

The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1097 of 2019 are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2; petitioner in Crl.P.No.4473 of 2019 was arraigned as accused No.3, in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. The respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. On 15.04.2017, the 2"^ respondent herein has approached^{theSalurTownPolice} Station and reported that the accused Nos. 1 and 2^{havecommittedfraudand} cheated her by dealing with the properties situated in Sy.No.216-1B, 1C of Gumadam Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District which belong to her; that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have illegally, knowingly^{andwithfraudulent} intention executed registered sale deeds vide document bearing Nos. 1460, 1461, 1462/2015, dated 27.06.2015 in favour of accused^{Nos.4to6.The2} nd respondent further submitted that the accused Nos.1^{and2filedW.P.No.9817} of 2015 wherein they have stated that they are the owners and possessors of the land situated in TS.No.159/2, 162/2 of Salur Town,^which is recorded as grama kantam in village record; that the accused Nos.1 and 2 sought direction from the Court in terms of the orders passed in another^{W.P.No. 1339of2014,} wherein there was a direction to effect registrations of lands in Sy.Nos. 159/2, 162/2 situated in Salur Town. The said writ petition filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 was disposed of on 08.04.2015, basing on which^{theaccusedNos.1} and 2 executed registered sale deeds of the property belonging to the respondent No.2 of Sy.No.216-B/1C/Gundam revenue village,^SalurTown in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. Thereafter, the 2"^^ respondent has approached the District Collector expressing her grievance, who^{inturnhadaddresseda} letter dated 16.09.2016 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram who in turn had entrusted the matter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has subi.,itted

¶73

a report dated 14.10.2016 to the District Collector, stating that the land shown \ with specified boundaries in sale deeds is in respect of Sy.No.216-1B, 1C Gumadam revenue village but not in respect of Sy.No. 162-2. The respondent No.2 further submitted that her lands are situated in Sy.No.216, Katha No.655 which stands in the name of her father in law and that she is the legal heir of the said property. As such, the 2 nd respondent has requested the police to register a case against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Sub-Registrar who has registered unlawful documents by suppressing the real facts was arraigned as accused No.3, the purchasers of the said property were arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 6 and the mediators, attestors of the documents were arraigned as accused Nos.7 and 8. Basing on the said report submitted by the 2"^ respondent, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2017 against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. After due investigation, the police have filed the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 against the accused on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 against the accused Nos.1 to 3, the present petitions have been filed.

¶74

¶75

Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments contended that the 2'’'^ respondent in her statement stated that there was a partition suit which was pending before the Civil Court between herself and the family members. The dispute between the respondent and the petitioners herein is purely a civil in nature and the present complaint is filed to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the 2 nd respondent has no right to claim over the property in Sy.No.216 of Gumdam Village, Salur Town as it belongs to the Government as per the report submitted by the Tahsildar. He has submitted that if the allegations made in the charge-sheet, even if accepted to be true in entirety^{donotdisclosethe} ingredients of any offence of cheating as under Section 420 of IPC. In order to constitute an offence under Section 420, cheating is not the only act that

¶76

should be taken into consideration, but as a consequence to cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security. In the present case, no such act took place and as such, the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur is liable to be quashed.

¶77

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the property in Sy.No.216-1B,1C of Gumadam Village, Salur Mandal belongs to the respondent No.2 as she is the legal heir and the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed fraud and cheated her by executing registered sale deeds in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. The said sale deeds were registered by the accused No.3 who has colluded with the accused Nos.1 and 2. As such, all the petitioners herein are liable to be punished under Section 420 IPC and the present petitions are liable to be dismissed, as the proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶78

When Crl.P.No.1097 of 2019 came up for hearing on 22.02.2019, this Court has granted interim stay on all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

¶79

Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows: “Whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.390/2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur filed against the petitioners herein under Section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C., is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶80

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

¶81

to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious has authority to make proposition that when a Court effect. If an order an order, it must have also power to carry that order into can lawfully be made, it must be would be useless carried out; otherwise it to make it. The authority of the Court advancement of justice exists for the and if any attempt i IS made to abuse that authority so as ot produce injustice, the Court must have power to the absence of prevent that abuse. In such power the administration of law would fail to purpose for which alone the serve the Court exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section 482 of Cr.P.c confers safeguards existing no new powers but merely powers possessed by the High Court be exercised • Such power has to sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external in nature to meet the ends of justice.

¶82

Time and again, the scope of powers of this 482 of Cr.P.c. Court under Section were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of pronouncements, which perspective are as follows; 'n “R.P. Kapur v'. State of Punjab^", the Apex Court laid down the following principles;

¶83

(i> Where mlilutlorVcontinuance of cr.i ermine! proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the the h process of the court or that the quashing of impugned proceedings would secure the ends ofjustice; (ii) where it manifestly or continuance of the appears that there is a legal bar against the institution,i said proceeding, e.g. want of sanction; (Hi) where the allegations i in the First Information Report taken at their face value or the complaint and accepted in their offence alleged; and entirety, do not constitute the

¶84

(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there legal evidence adduced is either no or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

¶85

'air 1960 SC 866

¶86

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers^the High 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 quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute^theoffence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has 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 the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in “Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar^”

¶87

Keeping in view the above principles, I would like^toexaminethe case on hand.

¶88

The petitioners herein are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 of I.PC. deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The word “Cheating” is defined under Section 415 of I.P.C and it is 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 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,^{andwhichactor} omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

¶89

The essential ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating are:

¶90

^ AIR 1990 SC 494

¶91

¶92

deceiving0) Therehim; should be freudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by (ii) (3) The person deceived should be i to any person, induced to deliver or to consent that ony property The person Shan retain person so deceived should any property; or (b) anything which he be intentionally induced to do would not do or omit to do O'-omit if he were aot so deceived; and (Hi) In cases oausec (b). the act causes or is likely to or omission should be one which ^buee damage or Harm ,0 the mind, reputation or property person induced in body. 12. While dealing with ' P C., the HonV ble Apex Court ini Section 420 of Vs. State of Kerala " Private Limited S & Others^” held Another as follows;

¶93

‘it is true that a given set of facts may make out criminal offence and a civil wrong as also a only because a civil complainant that itself ''^^^dy may be available to the cannot be a ground to proceeding. The real test is whether the quash a criminal disclose the cri allegations in the IS criminal offence of cheating complaint not. In the present nothing to show that at the case there behalf of the ^ery inception there >^as any intention on ^^^ased persons to cheat which is a condition an offence under Section precedent for disclose any criminal offence420 IPC. In our view the complaint does not at all. Criminal encouraged when it- iIS found to be malafide proceedings should not be or otherwise process of the an abuse of the court. The Superior courts while should also strive to serve the exercising this power ends ofjustice. In these facts allowing the police mvestigationi to continueour opinion, in view of inenrefusingabuse oftotheexercise processtheofpower court and the THgh Court committedwould amountan errorto under Section 482 Code to quash the Criminal Procedure proceedings.

¶94

In the instant case, I am not inclined whether the said - to look into the property in Sy.No.216 question -1B, 1C of Gumadam Mendal, Vizianagaram w'lage, Salur belongs to the 2^nd respondent, but, the main point for consideration is whether the petitioners have committed offence punishable " (2015) 8 see 293

¶95

¶96

¶97

under Section 420 IPC. Admittedly, the 2'^'^ respondent has filed a complaint before police against the accused Nos.1 to 8 for cheating. It was alleged by the 2"^ respondent that the accused Nos.1 and 2 fraudulently executed registered sale deeds of the properties belonging to the respondent, in Sy.nos.216-1B, 1C of Gumadam village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District, in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. Though the property in the aforesaid survey number allegedly belongs to the 2"'^ respondent, the^accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed fraud by selling the same to accused Nos.4 to 6. For having registered the sale deeds presented by the accused^{Nos.1and2infavourof} accused Nos.4 to 6, the respondent has arraigned the Sub-Registrar as accused No.3 alleging that the accused No.3 has unlawfully suppressed the real facts and registered the sale deeds vide document Nos. 1460/2015, 1461/2015, 1462/2015, dated 27.06.2015.

¶98

When a sale deed is executed by- conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But, in the instant case, the complainant is not the purchaser but the person who claims herself to be the owner of the said property. The purchasers have been made as co-accused/accused Nos.4^to6. It is not the case of the 2'''^respondent that any of the accused^{triedtodeceivehereither} by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the accused Nos.1 and 2 pretended to be the complainant by identity while executing the sale deeds. As such, it^{cannotbesaidthatthe} accused Nos.1 and 2 by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the accused Nos.4 to 6, or the accused No.3 in having executed^thesaledeeds

¶99

¶100

presented by the accused Nos.1 and 2, deceived the 2"^^ respondent in any ^ manner.

¶101

Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again has drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complaints 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 enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. The 2''''respondent herein, in the statement submitted by her before the SubInspector of Police on 15.04.2017 has unconditionally admitted that she has filed a suit before the court below aggrieved by the action of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in fraudulently selling away her property. There is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement in the civil dispute. In the case of G. Sagar Suri and Another V. State of U.P. and others^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. Even in the present case, it appears that the 2'"'^ respondent has filed the present complaint in order to settle the civil disputes raised by the petitioners herein and to pressurize the petitioners herein. As continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners may amount to the abuse of the process of the court and as the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice, this Court feels that the charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur is liable to be quashed.

¶102

Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur are quashed in respect of the petitioners i.e. accused Nos.1 to 3.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition, shall

¶107

stand closed.

¶108

1 (2000) 2 see 636: 2000 INSe 34

¶109

SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶110