Allowed

T.Lavanya v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2024CRLP/555/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a private complaint for cheating, criminal breach of trust and intimidation, arising from a disputed property sale with pending civil suits between the parties, sought quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held continuance amounted to abuse of process and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.1784 of 2015 quashed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

T.Lavanya Vs State of Ap — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

:-r<

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.555 of 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

T.Lavanya, (A-1), W/o.T.Venkatanarayana, Aged 53 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No.40/321-6-A4, Abdullah Khan Estate, 0pp. Zilla Parishad, Kurnool Town.

¶9

T.Venkata Narayana, (A-2), S/o. T.Seshaiah, Age 65 years, Occ; Agriculture, R/o. H.No.40/321-6-A4, Abdullah Khan Estate, 0pp. Zilla Parishad, Kurnool Town.

¶10

T.Badrinath, (A-3), S/o. T.Venkatanarayana, Age 32 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o. H.No.40/321-6-A4, Abdullah Khan Estate, 0pp. Zilla Parishad, Kurnool Town.

¶11

Royachoti Vijay, (A-4), S/o. K.Krishnadevarayulu, Age 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.Rayachoti, Kadapa District.

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶15

G.Satyanarayana, S/o. G.Thukaram, Age 42 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. H.N0.43/236-A and B, N.R.Peta, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court

¶18

may be pleased to cal! for the records relating to^{theCCNo.1784/2015on} the file of Judicial Class Magistrate, Kurnool and^{quashthesame.}

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in^{thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including^{appearanceofthe} petitioners in CC No.1784/2015 on the file of Judicial 1®‘ Class Magistrate, Kurnool, pending the quash petition.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the^Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate for the Petitioners and the^{PublicProsecutoron} behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K Rathanga^{PaniReddy,Advocate} for the Respondent No.2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

[3333]

¶24

APHC010027402019

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 555/2019

¶30

Between:

¶31

T.lavanya and Others

¶32

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶33

AND

¶34

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT{S) State Of Ap and Others

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S);

¶36

1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S);

¶38

1 .K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

¶39

2.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶40

The Court made the following:

¶41

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

The instant criminal petition under Section 482 of^Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.,) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against^them in C.C.No.1784 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 IPC and 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶44

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶45

(i) Petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.1 to 4 and respondent^No.2 herein is the defacto-complainant. Respondent No.2 purchased the house from the Accused Nos.1 and 2 by way of a registered^sale deed dated 14.03.2014. In that deed, it is clearly^{recitedthatthe} possession and enjoyment of the said building shall be with Petitioner No.1 only till 13.06.2015. Meanwhile, on 16.03.2015, the Respondent No.2 filed a caveat against Petitioner No.1 clearly stating that Petitioner No.1 is in possession and enjoyment^ofthe said building and contemplating to file some false suit against Respondent No.2. Further, the Respondent No.2 also filed a criminal case in FIR. No.142/2015, dated 13.06.2015 for not delivering possession of the said house building to the Respondent No.2.

T-

(ii)

While the matter stood thus, Petitioner No.1 got issued a legal notice dated 28.05.2015 to the Respondent No.2 asking him to receive Rs. 2.00 crores and re-conveyance the said^propertyby executing a registered sale deed in favour of Petitioner^No.1.The Respondent No.2 managed to return such legal notice sent by registered post without receiving the same. Later,^on09.06.2015 Petitioner No.1 filed a suit for enforcement of re-conveyance^deed and for cancellation of registered sale deed No.1629/2014,^dated 14.03.2014 against the Respondent No.2 in O.S.No.93^of2015on the file of VI Additional District Court, Kurnool.

¶50

Thereafter, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for^permanent 11.06.2015 in O.S.No.277 of injunction against Respondent No.2 on 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool.^Thecounsel for the Respondent No.2 took time for filing counter on the^ground that he has filed caveat. After taking two adjournments without^filing counter, meanwhile, at the intervening night of 15.06.2015 and 16.06.2015, taking advantage of the absence of the^{Petitioners,the} Respondent No.2 broke open the lock and illegally trespassed into the house. Thereafter, at the request of Petitioners^Nos.1 and 2, their counsel at Kurnool, Mr. M. R. Krishna Advocate,^lodgeda police complaint against the Respondent No.2 and an FIR No.146/2015, dated 17.06.2015 was registered charging under Sections 454, 461 380 r/w 34 of IPC. Basing on the same, arrested the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1/Police

¶51

¶52

remanded him to judicial custody. Thereafter, the Respondent^No.2 obtained bail and once again continuously in illegal^{possessionand} occupation of said premises.

¶53

(iv)

¶54

Meanwhile, on 22.06.2015 by misrepresentation and misleading^the facts of the case, the Respondent No.2 filed suit for^permanent injunction against Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.380^of2015on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool,^{andobtainedan} exparte interim injunction against them etc by suppressing the pendency of suit for injunction in O.S.No.277 of 2015. On 14.11.2015, Respondent No.2 filed C.C.No.1784 of 2015^onthefile of the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,^Kurnool for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406,^506IPCand 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them.

¶55

Heard both the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record.

¶56

Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 would submit that the civil cases are pending between the^{PetitionerNos.1and2and} the Respondent No.2 in the civil courts. He would further submit that the Petitioner No.2 who carries on real estate business^{duetohisfinancialneeds} used to borrow loan from the Respondent No.2, who is^{amoneylender.Dueto} non-payment of interest. Respondent No.2 from time^{totimeincreasedtheloan}

V \

amount to Rs. 2.00 Crores illegally. Thereafter, in a schemed manner pressurized the Petitioner No.2 to execute registered sale deed in his favour in respect of house property of which Petitioner No.1 is the owner as a security. Having no alternate solution, executed a registered sale deed in favour of Respondent No.2.

¶61

Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 would also submit that since the issue involved in Civil Case and Civil Suits are pending between the parties in various courts of Kurnool, no ingredients of criminal case charged under Sections 420, 406, 506 of IPC are foundⁱⁿ the allegations of the FIR Complaint. The filing of the criminal case with false allegations and also pending of criminal case in CC.No.1784 of 2015 in a^civilcase is nothing but abuse of the process of the court and therefore, prayed^to quash^theentire criminal proceedings initiated by Respondent No.2.

¶62

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would^submitthat there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The truth, or otherwise, of the said allegations will be revealed during the^{courseofthetrial.There} are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners, at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶63

Having heard both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination is; Whether there are any Justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against the petitioners/ Accused Nos.l to 4 in C.C.No.l784 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool?

A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are^{notlimitedoraffectedso} 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 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.

¶68

Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others^^isconsidered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

¶69

a102. 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^underArticle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the^Codewhich 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

¶70

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶71

¶72

court or otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly deifned and sufifciently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶73

(1) Where the allegations made i n the first information report or

¶74

the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and

¶75

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any

¶76

offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶77

(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 ofifcers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of

¶78

the Code.

¶79

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected i n support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out

¶80

a case against the accused.

¶81

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation ISi permitted by a police ofifcer

¶82

without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶83

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no

¶84

prudent person can ever reach a Just conclusion that there ISi sufifcient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶85

(6) Where there i IS an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

¶86

provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

¶87

¶88

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. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/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.

¶89

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; that the court will not 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.”

¶90

(emphasis supplied)

¶91

Having regard to the discussion referred above, this^Court is of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 amounts to abuse of process of Court and in such circumstances, the inherent powers under Section 482^{Cr.P.Ccanbeinvokedto} quash the proceedings.

¶92

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4^{inC.C.No.1784of2015on} the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,^Kurnool.

¶93

¶94

¶95

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶96

closed.

¶97

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 , The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, Kurnool District. Kurnool II Town Police Station, Kurnool 2. The Station House Officer District.

¶103

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 3. Two CCS to the Public Amaravathi[OUT]

¶104

Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Ineni Venkata Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri K Rathanga Pani

¶105

Three CD Copies

TK ns

^2 6 I

HIGH COURT

DATED:17/09/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.555 of 2019

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

T.Lavanya v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Lavanya v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Veeranjeeneyulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk.Rafi, Guntur Dist and Another Vs M.D., A.P. Education and Welfare Infrastructure Devp Corp. Hyd

V. Anki Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P.B.Srinivas Vs State of Ap

G.Satyanarayana Vs State of Ap

C.Neelakanta Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh