The Court quashed an investigation under Section 482 CrPC. The complaint arose from a property dispute settled via a Lok Adalat award supported by the Investigating Officer. Further inquiry was deemed an abuse of process.
CrPC Petition allowed and investigation in Crime No.53 of 2008 is quashed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1644 OF 2008
DATED:15.07.2010
Between: Bhasyam Ramakrishna and others .. Petitioners And Smt. Kadiyala Indira Devi And another .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1644 of 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by seven persons is for quashing investigation in Crime No.53 of 2008, dated 17.03.2008 of L & O Police Station of Pattabhipuram, Guntur. The prayer for quashing is justified mainly on two grounds that the civil dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent ended in a compromise in Lok Adalat, Guntur and that the allegations made in the complaint to the police by the first respondent are contrary to the compromise memo dated 21.08.2006 filed before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that after completing investigation, the Sub Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Guntur, submitted case diary on 02.06.2008 to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, referring the case as a mistake of fact and further praying the said Court to treat the case as such and order accordingly. One year thereafter it appears at the instance of the Additional Director General of Police, CID, the case now stands referred to Inspector of Police (CID), Vijayawada, for investigation and that the same is abuse of process of law.
Though notices are served on the first respondent, none appears and she remained ex parte.
The case of the petitioners which is not seriously disputed is as follows. There has been a dispute between the petitioners and the first respondent in respect of 450 square yards of land situated at Chandramoulinagar, Guntur. The first respondent filed O.S.No.511 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for partition of certain properties against defendant Nos.1 to 4 therein. She claimed right under a will, dated 09.02.1992 executed by a person who is alleged to be her husband. In addition to the contesting defendants, who are interested in the property as many as 14 members were also impleaded in the suit. The suit was dismissed
on 06.09.2006. It appears that she along with her daughters also filed a memo on 21.08.2006. A finding was recorded that the plea set up by her is not true, valid and binding on the defendant.
Two years thereafter the first respondent lodged a report to the police, which was registered as Crime No.53 of 2008 under Sections 143, 448, 427, 506 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She alleged that the civil dispute in O.S.No.511 of 1992 ended in a compromise for a total package of Rs.1.2 crores. She further stated that the compromise was signed by her and one of her daughters and the opponents forged the signatures of other two daughters, whereafter, the house which was one of the scheduled properties in the suit was registered by way of General Power of Attorney in the name of Accused No.7 (Petitioner No.7 herein) and later in favour of Accused No.6 (Petitioner no.6 herein). As they did not receive the amount, they enquired in the Court and learnt that the decree was passed. After obtaining the copy of the judgment, they filed I.A.No.510 of 2007. She further alleged that Accused Nos.6 and 7, in collusion with the police, took herself and her daughter to the Police Station and the accused with the help of hundred coolies got the house dismantled and stolen away cash of Rs.6,40,000/-, 125 sovereigns of gold, three kgs. of silver and other household articles.
After registering the crime, the first respondent and her three daughters again filed O.S.No.187 of 2008 for permanent injunction arraying the petitioners herein as defendants. This suit also ended in a compromise before Lok Adalat and on 31.10.2008 an award in Lok Adalat Case No.349 of 2008 dated 31.03.2010 was passed under which the first respondent and three daughters received Rs.32,00,000/- (each Rs.8,00,000/-). Even before the award was passed the SDPO, Guntur, submitted the Case Diary on 02.06.2008 to the criminal Court referring the case as a mistake of fact.
The factual background which remains uncontroverted, would speak for itself. The first respondent on the one hand filing the suits and entering into compromise and on the other hand, on allegation that the agreed money was not paid, lodged a complaint. Indeed after lodging the complaint, again she filed a suit and as per the documents produced before this Court, the second suit ended in a compromise before Lok Adalat. If she also disputes the award of the Lok Adalat, her remedy is elsewhere. Further when the Investigating Officer has already submitted the Case Diary, any further investigation would be certainly abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this is a fit case to
exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.53 of 2008 of L & O, Police station Pattabhipuram, Guntur is quashed.
________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J)
15.07.2010 KH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the investigation into the criminal complaint can be quashed given the existence of settled civil disputes and compromise awards.
Whether further investigation after the submission of the case diary constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Whether continuing prosecution in a case resolved through a Lok Adalat award amounts to a miscarriage of justice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhasyam Ramakrishna and others
Smt. Kadiyala Indira Devi and another
V.V.S. Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
