Partly allowed

Velagala Veera Reddy v. the State of A.P.

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024CRLP/4164/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 468, 384, 379 r/w 34 IPC arising from a private complaint over loan transactions and mortgage documents. Holding the complaint a counterblast to NI Act cases filed by the petitioners, the court invoked Bhajanlal guidelines and quashed the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3; the petition against petitioner 1 abated as

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.24 of 2018 quashed against petitioners 2 and 3; petition against petitioner 1 dismissed as abated.

Velagala Veera Reddy Vs the State of A.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

A A

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI &

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4164 OF 20^R

¶8

Between:

¶9

Velagaia Veera Reddy, S/o Somi Reddy, Aged about 42 years, C/o. Raman Bankers, beside Nagadevi Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

¶10

Tota Ramana Babu, S/o Durga RAo, Aged about 32 years, D.No. 24.4.12 Kambipeta Venkateswara Market Street, Rajamahendravaram.

¶11

Thota Suvarnalatha, W/o Ramana Babu Aged about 30 years,

¶12

D.No.26.6.11, Kappaala Veedi, Kambalalpeta, Rajamahendravaram.

¶13

...Petitioners/Accused

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of A.P., Rep. byfts Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. r

¶16

Dara Yesu Ratnam, S/o Venkat Rao, Aged about 42 years, D.No. 29.14.93, Chennakesava Apartments, Devui Chowk, Rajamahendravaram.

¶17

...Respondents/Complainant

¶18

'If’-'

¶19

•r A. k*» h

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the ■% circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition } *tlie,Hi^ Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings initiated against f the.J)^titioners/accused herein in CC No. 24/2018 on the file of 3rd ^ V^dditi4r>^tiudicial class Magistrate, at Rajamahendravaram. i ■. 0 , % •

¶21

■%

¶22

• I.A'nO:'i of 2018

¶23

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 and personal appearance'of the petitioners/accused in CC No. 24/2018 on the file of 3rd Additional Judicial 1 St class Magistrate, at Rajamahendravaram.

¶24

This Petition coming on-for hearing, upon perusing^{theMemorandum} 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. 1-and of Sri V. Ramachandra Reddy, for the Respondent No.2 . i

¶25

The Court made the following ORDER: .i

i , i

'J k

APHC010267182018

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

¶33

[3333]

¶34

TUESDAY .THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶35

PRESENT

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶37

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4164/2018

¶38

Between:

¶39

Velagala Veera Reddy and Others

¶40

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶41

AND

¶42

The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶44

1.T S N MURTHY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶46

RAMA CHANDRA REDDY VUPPADA

¶47

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶48

The Court made the following:

¶49

¶50

ORDER;

¶51

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short Cr.P.C], is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused herein, in C,C.No.24^{of2018onthefile} f the ill Additional Judicial Fist Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravar^am. The petitioners herein are arrayed as the accused 1 to^3.

¶52

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the^{2"^^respondent} herein/ complainant had filed a complaint under Section^{190Cr.P.C.before} the III Additional Judicial Fist Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravaram and the same has been referred to 111 Town Police Station, Rajahmundry (Urban). On 02.05.2017 police registered the same as F.I.R.^{inCrimeNo.186of2017} for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468,^{384,379r/w34ofIPC} and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation,^{filedchargesheet} against the A1 to A3/the petitioners herein, on the file of Court of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajamahendravar^am for the nd said offences. The allegations against the petitioners^{arethatinitiallythe2} respondent/defacto complainant obtained loan of Rs.50,000/-^fromA1, by executing cheques and promotes duly signed by him,^{laterdischargedthe} said debt. But the accused did not returned the said^cheques. The 2 nd respondent again took loan of Rs.2lakhs from A1 for^{thesecondtimeby} executing cheques and promotes duly signed by his wife and failed to discharge the said amount due to loss sustained in^thebusiness. On that at

¶53

¶54

the instance of the accused, the 2'^^ respondent/complainant executed a Mortgaged Agreement of his house for an amount of Rs.3 lakhs. Further, the 2"^ respondent also Mortgaged the house of his friend’s daughter for an amount of Rs.3,10,000/-. Later the 2"'^ respondent discharged the total debt amount, but the accused has cancelled only the mortgage^{documentofhis} house and refused to redeem the mortgage documents of one Yanamandra Prabhavathi. The 2""* respondent also got issued some blank cheques and pronotes in the name of his mother Dara Suseela, but the accused did not pacify besides forged his cheques and filed a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the complainant and cheated him. Hence, the 2 nd respondent preferred the private complaint under section 190Cr.P.C. before the Court, which is referred to III town Police Station, for investigation.

¶55

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2 nd respondent/rte/ac/o complainant as well as his family members used to borrow huge amounts from the petitioners and some third parties, instead of repaying the loan amounts and in order to escape from their liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 filed the private complaint with frivolous allegations. In fact, the mother and wife of the 2'"'* respondent have obtained loan amounts and failed to repay the same, for which the petitioners also filed complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act vide C.C.No.24

¶57

.V 1 I

¶58

¶59

of 2016 on the file of ill Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry and C.C.No.400 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry. While the matters^{arepending,the} 2"*^ respondent filed the present complaint with an^{evilintentiontoharassthe} petitioners, which is nothing but to escape from their^liabilities.

¶60

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the^{Codeenvisages} that inherent powers of the Fligh Court are not limited^oraffected 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^{Courtor,othenA/ise(iii)to} secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction^is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.

¶61

Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of^{theprovisionmust} be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Flon’ble Apex^CourtinState of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^ is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At^{paras102and103,the} circumstances are spelt out as follows;

¶62

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶63

¶64

‘‘102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 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 of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶65

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted ini.r their entirety do not prime facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶66

(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.

¶67

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against^theaccused.

¶68

(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.

¶69

(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.

¶70

(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

¶71

¶72

¶73

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.

¶74

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously Instituted^withan ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

¶75

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases;^{thatthecourtwillnot} be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

¶76

It is a well settled principle of law that when even if prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence alleged or not. 8. On a perusal of the record, it is admitted fact that the 2"^^ respondent/ defacto complainant and his family members obtained^{loanamountsfromthe} petitioners by providing cheques and pro-notes. Even as per the Charge Sheet filed by the Police, it is evident that the petitioners/^accused have already preferred a case under Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 as against the 2 nd respondent herein, since the 2^^ respondent/defacto complainant cheated them. Thus, it can be understood that since the accused has preferred a case under Negotiable Instruments Act, it itself proves that the private complaint filed by the 2"'^ respondent is nothing^{butacounterblastto}

¶77

r (

¶78

¶79

the cases preferred by the petitioners under the Negotiable Instruments Act, ^ 1881. However, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that the 1®‘ petitioner herein is no more.

¶80

In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court prima facie is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners 2 and 3 would amount to abuse of process of Court and the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C are liable to be invoked to quash the proceedings.

¶81

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against petitioners 2 and 3 in C.C.No.24 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Fist Class Magistrate at Rajamahendravar^am for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 384, 379 r/w 34 of IPC and the Criminal Petition is dismissed against the 1®‘ petitioner^asabated.

¶82

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The III Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate at Rajamahendrava^ram. 2. The Station House Officer, III Town L & O P.S., Rajamahendravara^m. 3. One CC to Sri T S N Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri V. Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT 6. Three CD Copies

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED;10/09/2024

T. >-k

ORDER