Goli Gangadhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹ has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in Crime No.35 of 2020 on the file of Chirala II Town

¶24

1 for short „Cr.P.C‟

¶25

2

¶26

Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 477-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860² .

¶27

2. Heard Sri Akurathi Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/State and Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, previously, the father of Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against the Petitioner and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.180 of 2019 on 28.08.2019. Learned counsel would further submit that the said case was referred as "civil in nature". Learned counsel would further submit that, having not satisfied with the same, Respondent No.2 filed the present complaint with the same allegations for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 477-A IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.239 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Chirala against Respondent No.2 herein and two others and obtained an ad-interim injunction against the Respondent No.2 and his parents, who are the parties therein and the same is in force. Learned counsel would further submit that the father of respondent No.2 has obtained Rs.12,00,000/- as a loan from the petitioner. It is alleged against the petitioner that though he discharged the said loan amount, the petitioner did not choose to return the pronote and obtained agreement of sale with possession as a collateral

¶29

2 for short „IPC‟

¶30

3

¶31

security. Learned counsel would further submit that even as on this day, respondent No.2 did not choose to challenge the said agreement of sale before the Civil Court. Absolutely, there are no ingredients to attract the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 477A IPC in the present case and prays to allow the petition.

¶32

4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the earlier

¶33

case was lodged by the father of Respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506 IPC. The present case is for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 and 477A IPC. Learned counsel would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶34

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that several cases have been lodged against the Petitioner with the very same allegations relating to different transactions.

¶35

Point for determination:

¶36

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both

¶37

the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

¶38

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime No.35 of 2020 on the file of Chirala II Town Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 477-A read with 34 IPC?

¶39

Determination by the Court:

¶40

7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages

¶41

that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) t o give effect to any order under the

¶42

4

¶43

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 trial court, 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.

¶44

8. As seen from the material placed on record, the present case has been lodged by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner alleging that, the father of Respondent No.2 namely Kasi Nagabhushanachari had purchased land of an extent of Ac.1.08 cents vide Doc.No.5278/2005 dated 15.05.2005 from one Ganapti Vara Prasad, for the benefit of Respondent No.2, herein, who was a minor then. It is further alleged that, the father of Respondent No.2 had borrowed an amount of Rs.12.00 lakhs from the Petitioner herein for his business purpose by keeping the said property as security and also got executed a possessory agreement of sale in his favour by threatening the family members of Respondent No.2 to kill and also by manipulating the date of birth of Respondent No.2, in collusion with the Panchayat Secretary and got it registered. It is also alleged that several cases were also registered against the Petitioner herein.

¶45

9. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would disclose that the Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.239 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala against Respondent No.2 herein and two others,

¶46

5

¶47

with regard to the subject property, wherein, an ad-interim injunction was granted on 02.08.2019 in favour of the Petitioner herein. Subsequent thereto, based on the complaint lodged by the father of Respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.180 of 2019 on the file of Chirala Rural Police Station, Prakasam District was registered against the Petitioner herein and others on 28.08.2019 for the offences under Sections 420, 323 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Police, after enquiring into the matter, referred the said crime as “Civil in Nature” vide Proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala in C.No.223/RefDSOC/2020, dated 31.08.2020. Subsequent to the registration of Crime No.180 of 2019, the present crime has been registered on 24.02.2020 based on the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2.

¶48

10. At this juncture it is relevant to refer to Sections 415 and 420 IPC which read as follows:

¶49

“ 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, 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”.

¶50

420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶51

11. Perusal of the above Sections would reveal that, to hold a person guilty

¶52

of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest

¶53

6

¶54

at the time of making the promise. In the present case, the material available

¶55

on record would show that there is a civil suit pending between the parties with regard to the subject property. Based on the said fact, the earlier crime registered against the Petitioner was also closed. As seen from the facts of the case, the matter is of civil nature and there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420 IPC. In the absence of ingredients under Section 420 IPC, the question of attracting the offences under Sections 471 and 477-A against the Petitioner in the present case, does not arise. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner/Accused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no tenable grounds to continue the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused and as such, the same are liable to be quashed.

¶56

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in Crime No.35 of 2020 on the file of Chirala II Town Police Station, Prakasam District for the offences under Sections 420, 471, 477-A read with 34 IPC, are hereby quashed.

¶57

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶59

Date:16.07.2025 Dinesh

¶60

7

¶61

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶62

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1398 of 2020