The bench quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners in a cheating and forgery matter, holding allegations were insufficient and essentially civil in nature.
Criminal proceedings in CC No. 966 of 2012 quashed; criminal revision case dismissed.
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.
I
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTHDAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICEA.SANTHOSHREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITIONNO: 12202 aF 2013
&
CRIMINAL REVISION CASENo: 1558 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PE TITION NO: 12202 OF 2013
Between:
-' sA1ilt6, il floor, Troop dazar Kothi Hvderabad AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under section482 of cr.P.cprayingthat in the circumstances stated in the Memorandumof Grounds of criminal Petition, the High courtmay bepleased to call forthe records and quash the proceedingsinitiated in cc No.boO o 2012 on the fileof the ll Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad as there isno prima Facie case made out against the petitioners herein.
GRLPMP. NO:1 60F20
PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr'P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in theMemorandum of Groundsof Criminal Petition,the High Court may ;;;;"; to stay all furtherproceedings.in CC. No'966 ol 2012beforethe ll nOOf.fr/"i.pofitanMagistrate,'Nampally, Hyderabad pending disposalof this Criminalpetition.
This Petition coming on forhearing,upon perusingthe ll4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition andupon hearing the argumentsof Sri T S PRAVEEN KUMAR ,Advocate for thePetitioner and the PublicProsecutoron behalf of the Respondent Nos.2& 3 and of Sri J. SREENIVASA RAO Advocate for the Respondent No1.
CRIMINAL REVI SION CASE NO:1558 OF 2018
criminal Revision case under sections397 & 401 of Cr.P.C againstthe order dated 12-04-2018passed in Crl.MP.No.2295 of 2017 in CC.No. 966 of 2012 on the file of the court of the llAdditional chief Metropolitan Magistrate,at Hyderabad.
Between:
tvlohammed Nayeem,S/o. Mohd.Mahaboob,aged about 44 years'Occ:Business, R/o H.No.5-1-638, TroopBazar, Hyderabad.
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
AND
...PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT
IAN O: 1 OF 2018
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Courtmaybe pleased to stay all furtherproceedings in CC.No. 966 of2012 on the file of the ll Addl. C.M.M, dt Hyderabad,pending the Criminal Revision Case,in thishonble court.
Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. J SREENIVASA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: SRl. T S PRAVEEN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following: ORDER
//
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEA.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No .12202 0F2013 & Crl.R.C .No.1558OF 2018
COMMON ORDER:
Since these bothmattersarise out of the same calendarcase and the parties areone and the same, theyare heard togetherand are being disposedof by this common order. The panies willbc referred to as arrayedin the criminalpetition.
i
7
Sections 420,424 and 465 IPC, in addition to the offences alreadv registered, was dismissed.
I
3
with the first respondent on 16.12.2005 b1'paying valr:able sale consideration and as per the agreerrent, the llrst respondent handed over two cheques to the second petitioner in February. 2006 While the matters stood thus, the firstpetitionerexecuted a cancellation of gift settlement deed dated I6.11.2010 andthe complainant came to know of the same inMarch,201 2 and he stated that the gift settlement deed is cancelled unilaterally.Based on the said allegations, the police registered a caseagainst the petitioners alleging the offences referred to above. Aggrievedby the same, this criminal petition is filed.
)
J
L
4
above, the leamed counsel submits that the first respondent has paid the consideration to the second petitioner, as alleged in the complaint. That the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any offence, much less the alleged offences and the ingredients of the said offences are lacking. Leamed counsel further contends that the cause of action is predominantly civil in nature and filing ol the present case is nothing but abuse ofprocess ol-larv onlv to pressurize the petitioners to settle the matter. Insofar as the criminal revision case is concerned, learned counsel fi;fiher contends that the learned Magistrate has rightlldismissedthe petition filed by the first respondent/de facto complainant. In support of his contentions, the leamed counselrelied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in MOHAMMEI) IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHARAND ANOTHERI, MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERSV STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER2 and B.SURESH YADAV v. SHARIFA BEE AND ANOTHER].
20os) 3 scc 670
\
5
c
/
I l
6
respondent is a tenant ofsecondpetitioner. Hehad been payingthe rent to the second petitioner. The first respondent enteredinto an agreement of sale with the first respondent on16.12.2005b.v- paying valuable sale consideration and as per the agreement. the first respondent handed over two cheques inFebruary,2006. The first petitioner unilaterally executed a cancellation ofgift settlement deed dated 16.11.2020, which thecomplainant came to know in March,2012.
I
7
complaint and charge sheet do not disclose that there is no mention of commission of forgery, so also there is no reference to the word'forgery'and as to who filed the forged documents To establish the offences punishable under Sections 463 and 467, flaudulent intention is a pre-requisite. Corning 1o Section 120-tl IPC, it defines punishrnent for criminal conspiracy. Similar.ly. there are no allegations attracting the ingredients of criminal conspiracy against the petitioners.
"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to sublect the accused to harassment. Crrminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settltng scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have lo be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes".
\l
8
U.Pa wherein it is hetd thus:
"Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. ln exercise of itsjurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. lt is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civilnature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution For the accused it isa seraous matter. This Court has laid certainprinciples on the basis of which the High Court ts to exercise itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised toprevent abuse ofthe process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice'.
I '(2000) 2 sCC 636
9
I
\
\
I 5. Further, the trial court is ernpou,ered to aller the charge at the tirne ol conducting trial if there is rnaterial to alter the charge oramend charge or frame additional charge. This court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the leamed Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.2295 of 2017.
) )
10
Magistrate.Nampally, Hyderabad, are herebyquashed'
The criminalrevision case stands dismissed'
stand closed.
Sd/.B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANTREGISTRAR
//TRUECOPY//
SECTISNOFFICER
To,
CDLV
\
;
HIGH COURT
DATED:2710412022
COMMON ORDER
CRLP.No.12202 of 2013 &
1$ e 5 I.Arc
+
o
IJ 1J MAY 2A'? i
la
* o;',.','''
CRL R C NO: 1558 OF 2018
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION DISMISSING THE CRL,R.C.
Xb(
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the allegations disclose any offence punishable under Sections 193, 463, 467, and 120-B IPC given the civil nature of the dispute.
Whether the criminal revision petitioner deserves stay of criminal proceedings pending disposal of the revision case.
Whether the High Court ought to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process in a civil disagreement.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHERReferred¶76
MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHERReferred¶76
MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS V STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER2
B.SURESH YADAV v. SHARIFA BEE AND ANOTHERReferred¶79
B.SURESH YADAV v. SHARIFA BEE AND ANOTHER
G.SAGAR SURI v. STATE OF U.P.Explained¶80
G.SAGAR SURI v. STATE OF U.P
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Shobhadevi
Smt. Nivedita Manvikar
Mohammed Nayeem
The State of AP.
A. SANTHOSH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
