Allowed

M. Sandhya Reddy and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022CRLP/6329/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated by a private complaint. The Court held the dispute between the parties was entirely civil in nature, involving a breach of partnership deed terms, and was an unnatural conversion of a civil matter into a criminal prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 290 of 2021 pending before XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, against accused No. 1 and 2, were quashed.

M. Sandhya Reddy and another Vs The State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO :6329 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 M. Sandhya _Reddy and another, Wo M Bhaskar Reddy. Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o plot No.1 55/1 1^.l , Saraswathi lirgri-lothrkrn;, Secunderabad - 500015

¶8

2 R/o Plot No. !1,^{B_lasfgr Reddy, S/o} 155/1i1, Saraswaii^{M Raja.Reddy, Aged} ttagar, Lot6uiunir-, about S""r,ia"rroao 53 years, Occ. -soooi6. Doctor,'

¶9

...PETtTtoNER/ACCUSED(S)

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State of Telanoana and another, Rep by its public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad

¶12

2 !.Oytqg Sheela, Wo p Sreedhar Babu, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o H No 1-4-169142, Tirumala Enclave, Aiwal. R.R Distiict.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under section 4gz of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc. No. 290 of 2o2i on the fite of XXilt Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal against accused no1 and 2.

¶15

l.A. NO:'l OF 2021

¶16

Petition under section 482 of cr.p-c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay arr further proceedings in cc No. 290 of 2021 on the fire of XXlll Metropolitan Magistrate, Medcahl against accused No.1 and 2.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar^petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri s. RAM REDDY ,Advocate for the^petitioner and the pubric prosecutor (TG/Ap) on beharf

I i

of ther Respondent No. and of Sri M. W. R. JAYAKAR Advocate for^the Respc ndent No. 2.

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

t :

¶24

! I t i I t I I i I I

¶25

j I I I I I I I iI

¶26

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶27

CRIMINALP@

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Seeking tc quash the proceedings that are AS pendrng against the petitioners who are arrayed accused Nos. I and 2 in C.C.No.29O of 2O2l on the file of the Court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Medcha-l, this Criminal Petition is filed.

¶30

Heard the submission of lcarned counscl lor the petrtioners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as u,ell as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶31

Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners aJleging that the], committed offences punishable under Sections 42O, 506.499 and 120-B IPC. The said complaint rvas rclerred to Police for investigation and filing report. The Station House^()fliccr, Alwal Police Station basing on the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.556 of 20 I B of Atwal Police Station and took up inrlestigation. On completion of investigation. he liled

¶32

¶33

D..CSL, J CrLPNo.6329 of 2O21

¶34

fina-l report duly mentioning that the case is "civil in nature". Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a protest petition. Basing on the said protest petition, the Court below initiated proceedings against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court seeking to quash those proceedings.

¶35

Making his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the allegations that are levelled against the petitioners a'e false and the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and the dispute is entirely civil in nature. Learned counsel further states that there is a deed of partnership betr,r,een petitioner No. I and respondent No.2 and in the said partnership deed, there is a clear mention that in case, any dispute arises between them, the same has to be resolved through arbitration. But, without follou,ing the said procedure, respondent No.2 gave a complaint ro police u.hich is unsustainable.

¶36

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent \o.2 submitted that peritioner No.1 through the said partnership deed rs under obligation to come and siqn

¶37

¶38

DT,CSL, J CrlPNo.6329 of 2O2l

¶39

on relev€rnt papers and respondent No.2 paid amount to the petitioners basing on the said partnership deed. But, thereafter the petitioners did not turn up and thereby, the petitioners have cheated respondent No.2 and therefore, she lodged a complaint.

¶40

The fact that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2 entered into a partnership deed is not in dispute. The version of respondent No.2 is that they jointly run a school and did business for nine years and when petitioner No. I expressed her inability to carry on with the busine ss due to her personal problems, the accounts were settled and a sum of Rs.6,8O,OOO/- was paid by her to petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 1 agreed to cooperate and sign all the relevant documents, but thereafter she failed to turn up.

¶41

7 . A perusal of entire material that is available on record clearly goes to show that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The same was observed by the police Olficer i.e., the Sub-lnspector of police, Alwal police . -. Station r.r'ho investigated into the case when the complaint filed b-v rei;[-ondent No.2 was referred ro

¶42

¶43

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.6329 of 2O21

¶44

Police for investigation. Ultimately, the said police Officer submitted his report on 2g.3.2O19 stating that the case is purely civil in nature.

¶45

When the contents of the protest petition and also the initiat complaint are gone through, this Court Iinds that only because petirioner No. 1, who is the partner of respondent No.2, and her husband i.e., petitioner No.2 did not oblige with the conditions laid that they would cooperate for execution of subsequent deeds and that petitioner No.1 would sign on the relevant documents, respondent No.2 gave a complaint to Police. The presence of arbitration clause in the deed of partnership is also not in dispute. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No.2 tried to convert a civil dispute to criminal proceedings. This cannot be permitted under law.

¶46

In the case between Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. State of Karno:ta,kat. the Hon,ble Apex Court at paras 43 and 44 of the order held as follows:-

¶47

I 2O2l(O) AIJF]- SC a)792a)

¶48

¶49

Dr.CSL, J CrtPNo.6329 of 2021

¶50

" 43. On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs_ State of Up and Ors2, this Court has also observed:-

¶51

Jurisdiction under Section 492 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. .In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen il a matrer, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Cnminal 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 is a serious matter. This Court has laid cerrain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abusc of the process of any court or otherwise [o secure the ends of justice.,,

¶52

Furthermore. in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana & Ors_ Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Orsa regarding exercise of inherent po\vers under section 4g2 of CrpC, this Court has laid down follor.ving categories of instances wherein inherent powers of the can be exercised in order to secure the ends oljustice. These are:_

¶53

, (2000) 2 scc 636

¶54

3 (19921 scc lcril azs \6i

¶55

¶56

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.6329 of 202l

¶57

(i ) 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 facic constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶58

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of SecLion 155(2) of the Code;

¶59

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 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;

¶60

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable oifencc bui constitute only a non-cognizable offencc. no invcsl igal ion is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Codc;

¶61

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently irnpqobable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusron that

(

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.6329 of 2O21

¶66

there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶67

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instiruted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specihc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

¶68

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior mol ive for u.reaktng vengeance on the accused and lr,ith a vicu, to spite him due to private and personal grudge.,'

¶69

9 . Thus, the Hon ble Apex Court clearly held that any acts which makes a civil dispute to be converted to criminal proceedings should not be permitted under law and the proceedings commenced thus, would be abuse of process o[ law.

¶70

In the case on hand, it is clearly found that respondent No.2 tried to settle her scores, which could be settled through inrtiat.ion of civil proceedings, through criminal procedure. This cannot bp

¶71

¶72

DT.CSL' J CrtPNo.6329^of2021

¶73

entertained.^{Therefore, this Court holds that the} proceedings initiated^{against ttre petitionersare} unsustainable^{under law and as such' they are liable} to be^quashed.

¶74

I 1. Resultantly,^{this Criminal Petition is allowed'} The proceedings^{that are initiated againstthe} petitioners^{who are arrayedas accused Nos l and 2 in} C.C.No.29O^{of 2O2l that is pending on the file of the} Court of XXIII^{MetropolitanMagistrate} '^{Medchal are} hereby^quashed.

¶75

As a sequel,^{pending miscellaneous applications'}

¶76

if any, shall^{stand closed'}

¶77

SD/-P.PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶78

//TRUE COPY//

¶79

SECTION^OFFICER

¶80

To,