Accused sought quashing of FIR over alleged trespass on land subject to civil suit and injunction. Holding the dispute purely civil and the complaint a cloak for vengeance, the High Court quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 3.
Proceedings in Crime No.276 of 2018 quashed against petitioners/accused A1 and A3; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
9^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1266 OF 2019
Between:
...PETITIONERS A1&A3
AND
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
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 proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 and A.3 in Cr.no. 276/2018 of Bommuru police station Rajamahendravaram, Urban East Godavari Dist
\
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019
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 all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioner/a. 1 and A.3 in cr.no. 276/2018 of Bommuru Police station, Rajamahendravaram urban. East Godavari district pending disposal of the quash petition
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusingtheMemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T S N MURTHY ,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.
The Court made the following ORDER :
7 r
1
APHC010058552019
m
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3333]
TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1266/2019
Between:
P.Rajani Kumari and others
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED{S)
AND
State of AP and others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitloner/accused(S):
1.TS N MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
7
2
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 3 seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.276 of 2018ofBommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram (Urban) East Godavari District.
- Brief facts of the complaint are that the 2^ respondentownsalandto an extent of 155, 502 and 507 Sq.yards in R.S.No.312/1,312/1AnearRTC complex road and he also obtained electrical connection service on the said land and continuously paying the electricity bills and he is in peaceful possession of the said land. While so, the accused Nos.1 to 3 and some others trespassed into the said land highhandedly on 17.10.2018 at about 8 P.M. at RTC complex road, Rajamahendravaram caused damage to the electric meter, tried to raise construction and also threatened with dire consequences.
- Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners herein are innocents and a false case has been foisted againstthem. The 1 St petitioner herein is mother of 2^^ petitioner and the 2^^^ petitioner is absolute owner of the subject property. On 20.12.2013, the petitionershereinobtained injunction orders on the alleged property along with other properties against the 2"^^ respondent and others, in O.S.No.380 of 2013onthefileof I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavri District. On 16.11.2017, when the 2 nd respondent and their men violated the said injunction orders, on the complaint made by the petitioners herein, a casein Cr.No.402 of 2017 was registered against the 2''^ respondentherein.When
3
the police did not taken any action, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble High Court vide W.P.No.30127 of 2018 which was disposed of directing that the investigation being completed by the police and filed a report within a period of two (2) months. The petitioners herein also filed E.P.No.56 of 2017 in O.S.No.380 of 2013 for violation of the injunction orders before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram against the 2 nd respondent. The petitioners herein also got police protection orders from this Court in C.R.P.No.1438 of 2018 on 06.07.2018 and further stated that under the above mentioned circumstances the present complaint is registered as against the petitioner, which is purely a false case and prays to allow the petition.
None appeared for the 2'"'^ respondent.
- None appeared for the 2'"'^ respondent.
- Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 427, 447 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition.
- 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 proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.276 of 2018 of Bommuru Police Station, Rajamahendravaram (Urban), East Godavari District are liable to be quashed by exercising Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?”
4
The present petition has been filed under Section 482ofCr.P.C.
- 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 Courtorotherwisetosecure 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 carrythatorderintoeffect. If an order can lawfully be made, it must be carried out;otherwise it would be useless to make it. The authority of the Court existsfortheadvancementof justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to prevent thatabuse. 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 powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is externalinnaturetomeetthe ends of justice.
- Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court underSection482of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
In ‘R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab^”, the Apex Courtlaiddownthe following principles:
AIR I960 sc 866
5
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice;
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence allegedbutthereiseitherno legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
- 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 the offence 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
6
justification for interference by the High Court as held by the Apex Court in ‘Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumat^ ”
(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 prima 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 Section 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 made in the FIR or complaintand the evidence 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 is permitted 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 complaintaresoabsurdand 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 there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding 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.
^ AIR 1990 SC 494 ^1992 Supp (1)SCC 335
\
1
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attendedwithmalafideand/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 liketoexaminethecase on hand.
- The case of the prosecution is that on 17.10.2018, the petitioners herein along with accused No.2 trespassed into the land of de-facto complainant/2 nd respondent and threatened them highhandedly.
- As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the copies of judgment and decree in O.S.No.380 of 2013 and E.P.No.56of2017filedfor violation of injunction orders and also order copyinC.R.P.No.1438of2018 were filed. A Perusal of the documents, clearly reveals that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the subject property and they also obtained injunction orders from the Court and on violation of the said orders, the petitioners herein also preferred writ petition before this Court andalsofiledExecutionPetition for violation of injunction orders.
- The dispute is purely civil in nature and conversion of such civil dispute giving colour of criminal offence is abuse of process of Court. Having lost the civil suit, the present complaint has been lodged by the complainant converting the civil dispute into criminal, which cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments.
8
I
In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another"^’’ the Apex Court held as follows;
“This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentiallyand purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressureonthe 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.”
In “Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others^’’ the Apex Court held that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to guash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court.
In “Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh^” the Apex Court held that when civil suit is pending where the ownership of the property has to be decided in the pending suit as the same is subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil litigation, criminal proceedings cannot be primarily prosecuted.
(2009) 8 see 751 ® (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673
“(2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679
i
T
9
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shallalsostandclosed.
//TRUE COPY//
To,
7- 7
TAC
HIGH COURT
DATED:06/08/2024
ORDER
CRLP.No.1266 of 2019
OF AND/^
V
5 2 9 OCT 202^1
I^^SPATCVA^
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings against petitioners/A1 and A3 in Crime No.276 of 2018 are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.P. Kapur v. State of PunjabRelied on¶8
AIR 1960 SC 866 · Who else cites this
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna KumarRelied on¶9
AIR 1990 SC 494 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalRelied on¶10
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and anotherRelied on¶13
(2009) 8 SCC 751 · Who else cites this
Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and othersApplied¶13
(2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673
Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶13
(2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679
2 provisions across 2 enactments
P.Rajani Kumari
P.Aditya
The State of Andhra Pradesh
V.P.S.S.Sai Kumar
V Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
