The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a Criminal Court is entitled to consider the material on record and only when it finds that the facts constitute an offence, it can take cognizance and can summon any individual. Furthermore, making a mere allegation in a complaint without showing any basis does not warrant initiation of prosecution.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Smt. Kulsoom Bi filed a suit against her real sister claiming that the immovable property is owned by her and was under her use and occupation and out of affection her sister was permitted to stay on the first floor of the building gratuitously and as a licensee. Thereafter, even after making several requests to vacate the premises, she still failed to oblige and therefore, the suit was filed for a direction to the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property within a period of two months. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the Smt. Kulsoom Bi. However, the judgment debtor failed to comply and then, the decree-holder filed an execution petition. Furthermore, the executing Court issued a warrant for delivery. A Field Assistant of the Court acting upon the warrant instructions and in the presence of police, effected delivery of the immovable property. Thereafter, the judgment debtor refused to remove their movables, then, the Field Assistant in the presence of police and panch witnesses prepared an inventory, seized the articles, and kept them in the custody of the decree holder. After that, the judgment debtor approached the executing court seeking redelivery of her movables. However, she had verified the inventory of articles that was made, and having found that everything tallied with and was intact, she received them. The judgment debtor filed a complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. against the decree-holder and husband of the decree-holder. It was alleged that she found missing gold ornaments worth Rs.1,00,000/-, valuable watches and cash worth Rs.46,000/-, and valuable documents that were kept in the trunk box. However, the court below refused to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved by this, the present revision is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the court below erred in not entertaining the relief even though the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence. It was furthermore submitted that it was not possible for the judgment debtor to move any application before the executing Court as the executing court completed the task of executing the decree.
The Petitioner relied upon the judgment titled Seema Devi v. State of U.P.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the civil court and its officers duly acted in accordance with the law. It was furthermore submitted that instead of making any applications before the Civil Court, with a view to harass the parties, these criminal proceedings are put to process by the judgment debtor and the order of the Court below is right in accordance with law and facts and does not require any interference.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the submission made by the Petitioner that proceedings in execution were closed and therefore, they did not approach the Civil Court cannot be accepted as one may notice Order XXI Rules 43 and 43A C.P.C. in this regard.
The court furthermore observed that a Criminal Court is entitled to consider the material on record and it can only take cognizance and summon parties if it determines that the circumstances amount to an offense.
The Court noted that making a mere allegation in a complaint without showing any basis does not warrant initiation of prosecution.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or improper.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the criminal revision.
Case Title: Jameela Shaik V. State Of AP and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice V R K Krupa Sagar
Case No.: CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1139/2019
Advocate for the Petitioner: Giri Babu Marthi
Advocate for the Respondent: C Prakash Reddy
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
