The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the case was instituted as a weapon of harassment stemming from a civil dispute where the petitioners had already obtained a final decree in favor of their title.
The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2008 against the petitioners were 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 C. PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4412 of 2008
Date:26.04.2013
Between:
Sowramdas Apparao and others.
..... Petitioners.
AND
The State of A.P., through the Inspector of Police, New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad another.
.....Respondents.
The Court made the following :
`THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4412 of 2008
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 & A2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. A charge sheet was
filed against the petitioners/A1 & A2 along with another for the offences punishable under Sections 509, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Initially, a case in Crime No.194 of 2007 of New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam was registered against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 323, 447, 509 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, the police found that an offence under Section 447 IPC is not made out and as such filed charge sheet by deleting Section 447 IPC.
3. The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:
L.W.1 was a resident of a Spring Road, Poorna Market, Visakhapatnam and living by doing vegetable business. After the death of his wife, he married L.W.2. In the year 1994, L.W.1 is alleged to have purchased a vacant land to an extent of 333 square yards from L.W.4 in the name of his first wife Krishna Veni and the same was registered at Sub-Registrar Office. He was maintaining a toddy house at D.No.2-19A. About 20 days prior to lodging of the report, L.W.1 erected a boundary wall to the toddy house.
It is alleged that on 09-03-2007, at 10-30 A.M., A1 to A3 are alleged to have criminally trespassed into his site, threatened him with dire consequences and also abused him and his wife in vulgar language thereby, outraging the modesty of his wife. A report about the incident was given on the same day, which came to be registered as Crime No.194 of 2007. After completion of the investigation, police filed a charge sheet against the accused.
4. Heard Sri P. Krishna Prakas, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent-State and perused the record.
5. The docket order dated 31-10-2008 indicates that the notice sent to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner was refused on the ground that the there are spelling mistakes in the surname and father name of 2nd respondent. In view of the said circumstances, this Court was pleased to admit the present petition and also extended the interim stay granted earlier. In view of the said endorsement, it can be said that there was a proper service of notice on the 2nd respondent.
6. The Apex Court has time and again held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked where it appears that the proceedings are initiated with a malafide intention and with an oblique motive.
7. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan La l[1] laid down certain guidelines for exercising the power under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. which are as follows:
“In the following categories of cases the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of Court of otherwise to secure the ends of justice. (a) 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; (b) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, and the evidence collected in support of the same, do not disclose the commission of any offence, and make out a case against the accused; and (c) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides 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.”
8. In Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and others vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and other s[2] ,
the Supreme Court observed as follows:
“The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”
9. The Apex Court has time and again held that the courts should carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intention or with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide: Chandrapal Singh and Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh and Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of
A.P. and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531).
10. Keeping in view, the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court with regard to jurisdiction of court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
I proceed to deal with the matter. In the instant case, the incident of trespass and threatening the informant and his wife are alleged to have taken place on 09.03.2007. But a week prior to the said date, i.e. on 02.03.2007, the second petitioner herein obtained interim injunction against the respondent herein vide I.A.No.481 of 2007 in O.S.No.96 of 2007, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of schedule property by the second petitioner herein. There is no dispute about the said fact. It is apparent that on coming to know about the same, the defendant in the suit, utilized the services of the respondent herein and got this case foisted against the petitioner. Owing to civil dispute between the parties, there is every possibility for the respondent foisting a false case so as to make them to come to his terms. It is brought to the notice of this Court that O.S.No.96 of 2007 was ultimately decreed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. Ergo, when the petitioners were found to be in possession of land, the question of trespass cannot be accepted. Consequently the allegation of threat and abuse become suspicious and unreliable.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court feels that the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of Court and the proceedings have to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.638 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
_____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Date:26.04.2013 mrb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the opposing party in the context of a civil dispute amount to abuse of process of the court and warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the existence of an interim injunction in a related civil suit negates the allegation of criminal trespass against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana v. Bhajan LalFollowed¶23
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and othersExplained¶27
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and others vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others, (1988) 1 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
Chandrapal Singh and Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh and Anr.Distinguished¶30
Chandrapal Singh and Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh and Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors.Distinguished¶30
State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 · Who else cites this
G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Distinguished¶30
G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 · Who else cites this
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Ors.Distinguished¶30
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sowramdas Apparao and others
The State of A.P.
C. Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
