The High Court in a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. refused to quash sec 420 IPC proceedings arising from a land sale dispute. The court held that facts are disputed and prima facie sufficient to proceed, and that quashing was not appropriate when a specific remedy exists.
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 T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2339 of 2010
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1246 of 2007 on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent converted the civil litigation into criminal proceedings. He further submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute the offence alleged.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie constitute the offence alleged.
4. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner herein, who is sole accused, is facing trial in C.C.No.1246 of 2007 on the file of the IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet the petitioner herein purchased Ac.10-00 gts., of land in Sy.Nos.827, 820/B and 875/A of Ghanpur village. On 19-08-1999, the petitioner herein agreed to sell the land in favour of the second respondent for a total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-. In pursuance of the agreement of sale, the second respondent paid major portion of the amount to the petitioner. It is further alleged that the wife of the petitioner by name Srujana filed Form No.10 claiming regularization of her sale deed in respect of the land in dispute with an intention to cheat the second respondent
5. The Investigating Officer after satisfying himself with the material collected by him laid charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate after satisfying himself with the material available on record has taken cognizance of the offence referred supra against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity while taking the cognizance of offence.
6. Whether the petitioner cheated the second respondent or not involves complexity of disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into while
exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While deciding this type of petitions the Court has to take into consideration whether the allegations made in the charge sheet are prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner or not. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case the same may cause prejudice to either of the parties to the proceedings. The material placed before the Court is prima facie sufficient to proceed further against the petitioner.
7. In Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions.
1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.”
8. In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State {2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)} and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana {(2003) 4 SCC 675}. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in the cases cited supra, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at pre trial state.
10. With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of this petition does not preclude the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under law including filing of discharge petition if charges are not framed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J
November 11, 2014
Pn
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2339 of 2010
November 11, 2014
Pn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether allegations in the charge sheet prima facie constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC sufficient to proceed against the petitioner.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings filed in a civil dispute regarding sale of land.
Whether the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy via a discharge petition instead of quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Second Respondent
T. Sunil Chowdary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
