Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No. 22178 of 2016
and
Crl.M.P.No.10295 of 2016
Malladi Krishna Rao ... Petitioner
Vs
Manga Veerababu ...
Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash
and call for the records of the complaint in C.C.No.6 of 2016, pending on
the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Yanam.
For Petitioner : Mr.M. Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.V.Chinnasami
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the private complaint in C.C.No.6 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections177, 193 & 199 of IPC.
1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016
2. The crux of the complaint is that the respondent is a resident of Yanam. The petitioner contested in the Puducherry Assembly Election for Yanam Assembly Constituency in the year 2012 and filed election affidavit signed by him and notarized before the Returning Officer, Yanam. In the election affidavit, he made a statement that he passed 12th Standard, which is false one. He owned a house at Yerra Agraharam, Yanam, valuing at Rs.82,50,000/-. Thereafter, the said property was hypothicated in the Andhra Bank in Yanam, showing that the value is more than Rs.4 Crores and availed loan of Rs.4 Crores from the Andhra Bank. But, the house is worth about Rs.30,00,800/-. Therefore, the respondent issued notice dated 14.12.2015 and lodged a complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a sole accused in the complaint lodged by the respondent herein for the offence punishable under Sections 177, 193 & 199 of IPC. There is absolutely no material to attract any of the offence as alleged by the respondent herein. The petitioner contested in the General Election, which was held in the year 2011 and not in the year 2012. He filed an affidavit in 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016 support of his nomination, in which, he categorically stated that he studied intermediate and had never stated that he passed 12 th Standard. Further, the house owned by the petitioner is valued at Rs.82,50,000/-. Thereafter, his son applied for a loan and the said property had been shown as security, in which, the value of the said property is stated at Rs.4 Crores. However, his son availed loan only to the tune of Rs.1 Crore and the entire loan amount has been promptly repaid by him. The allegation is that the property was highly valued at Rs.82,50,000/- instead of 30,00,800/- as per the complaint. Even before the lodgment of the complaint, there was exchange of notices between the petitioner and the respondent. On receipt of the notice from the respondent, the petitioner replied with false particulars. Therefore, the present complaint is nothing but a clear abuse of process of this Court and it is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there are specific allegations to attract the offences under Sections 177, 193 & 199 of IPC as against the petitioner herein, since, the petitioner filed a false affidavit before the Election Commission of India while filing 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016 nomination, as such, he is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 193 of IPC.
5. Heard, Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Chinnasami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner contested in Puducherry Assembly Election for Yanam Assembly Constituency in the year 2011. In support of his nomination, he filed an affidavit and in the column of immovable assets, he had shown his residence value at Rs.82,50,000/-. Asfar as his education qualification is concerned, he stated that he passed 10th Standard in Mahatma Gandhi Government Boys High School, Yanam and studied intermediate in Sri Tangutturi Prakasam Panthulu Government Junior College, Yanam. Therefore, he never stated that he passed 12th Standard. Further, the son of the petitioner applied for a loan from the Andhra Bank, Yanam to the tune of Rs.4 Crores, in which, the subject property was mortgaged as collateral security by the petitioner. While offering the said 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016 property as security, his son valued the said property to the tune of Rs.2.03 Crores. However, his son availed loan to the tune of Rs.1 Crore, subsequently, the entire loan amount has been repaid by him.
7. Admittedly, the property is offered to the Bank as collateral security. The petitioner never valued the said property to the sum as valued by his son. The said valuation was done for the purpose of availing loan. That apart, the application for availing loan had been submitted in the year 2014. Whereas, in the year 2011, the petitioner valued the said property to the tune of Rs.82,50,000/- and shown in the affidavit filed in support of his nomination. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner filed a false affidavit valuing the property less than the value shown before the bank. That apart, the respondent caused notice stating that the property is worth about Rs.30,00,800/- only. However, the petitioner valued the property to the tune of Rs.82,50,000/- and also the respondent categorically stated that the property valued at Rs.30,00,800/- Whereas, the respondent alleged that the property is valued at low cost than the value shown before the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner filed a false affidavit in 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016 support of his nomination to contest the General Election.
8. In respect of his education qualification is concerned, he categorically averred in the affidavit filed in support of his nomination that he passed 10th Standard and studied intermediate and he never studied 12 th Standard. He only completed the course of intermediate. Therefore, no false affidavit had been filed by the petitioner herein. Further, the affidavit is filed in the year 2011 and the present impugned complaint is filed only in the year 2016. There is no explanation for the delay in lodgment of complaint. Therefore, no offence is made out as against the petitioner as alleged by the respondent. Thus, the present complaint is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and it cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.
9. It is relevant to rely upon the land mark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335 in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, which is reads as follows :
“7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and / or where the proceeding is 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016 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.”
10. In view of the above, the present complaint cannot be sustained as against the petitioner herein and it is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the complaint in C.C.No.6 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Yanam, is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
15.09.2022 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order Lpp/vsn 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.22178 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, Lpp/vsn Crl.O.P.No. 22178 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.10295 of 2016 15.09.2022 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis