Malepti Suresh Kumar, Kadapa Dt ... vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp And Anr.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7223 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

                            ****
             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2509 of 2015

Between:

1.     Malepati Suresh Kumar, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,
       Aged 50 years, R/o.9/524, Vedurla Bazar,
       Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town,
       Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
2.     Malepati Suneetha Kumari, W/o.Suresh Kumar,
       Aged about 47 years, R/o.9/524, Vedurla Bazar,
       Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town,
       Y.S.R.Kadapa District.     ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2

             And

1.     The State of A.P., represented by Station House Officer,
       II Town Police Station, Proddatur Town,
       Y.S.R.Kadapa District, through Public Prosecutor
       Of High Court of A.P.
2.     Narayana Suresh Babu, S/o.N.Kondaiah,
       aged about 39 years, R/o.4/633, Gandhi Road,
       Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
                                                     .. Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20-09-2022

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1.     Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?            No

2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       marked to Law Reporters / Journals?            Yes

3.     Whether His Lordship wish to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?             Yes



                                  DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
                                  2




     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

            + CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2509 of 2015


% 20-09-2022

Between:

1.     Malepati Suresh Kumar, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah,
       Aged 50 years, R/o.9/524, Vedurla Bazar,
       Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town,
       Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
2.     Malepati Suneetha Kumari, W/o.Suresh Kumar,
       Aged about 47 years, R/o.9/524, Vedurla Bazar,
       Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town,
       Y.S.R.Kadapa District.     ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2
             And

1.     The State of A.P., represented by Station House Officer,
       II Town Police Station, Proddatur Town,
       Y.S.R.Kadapa District, through Public Prosecutor
       Of High Court of A.P.
2.     Narayana Suresh Babu, S/o.N.Kondaiah,
       aged about 39 years, R/o.4/633, Gandhi Road,
       Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
                                                     .. Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners            : Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents            : Public Prosecutor - R.1
                                       V.R.Avula - R.2

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

       1)    (7) AIR 1992 SC 604

       2)    (10) 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 291 (SC)

This Court made the following:
                                  3




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.2509 of 2015


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners (A.1 and A.2)

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

„Cr.P.C‟) to quash the proceedings in C.C.446/2014 pending on the

file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Proddatur, Y.S.R.Kadapa District for the offence under Sec.420 r/w

34 IPC.

2. Perusal of the record would reveal that the Petitioners herein

are Accused Nos.1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent herein is the

defacto complainant and the offence alleged against the petitioners

is under Section 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

„I.P.C‟).

3. The brief allegations of the complaint filed by the 2nd

respondent are that the 2nd respondent and the 1st petitioner jointly

started "Sivani Super Market" at Mydukur. The 1st petitioner was

kept as a working partner whereas the 2nd respondent was the

sleeping partner. For some time the business went on peacefully

and thereafter the petitioners started enjoying without assessing

the profits and thereafter the 1st petitioner started doing business

independently without showing the accounts and tried to eliminate

the 2nd respondent from the partnership firm. At that juncture, the

elders intervened and directed the petitioners to pay cash of

Rs.25,00,000/- to the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent

would be dropped from the partnership. Thus, the petitioners with

their deceptive intention promised to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the 2nd

respondent towards his share and occupied the entire shop

eliminating the 2nd respondent without paying the amount.

Therefore, the 2nd respondent lodged a report and the same was

registered as F.I.R in Cr.No.130/2014 under Secs.407, 420 & 465

r/w 34 IPC and during the course of the investigation, as Secs.407

& 465 IPC does not attract, the same were deleted and the charge

sheet was filed under Sec.420 r/w 34 I.P.C.

4. In contra to the allegations mentioned in the report, the

petitioners approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings

in C.C.446/2014 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. The

brief allegations in the petition are that the 1st petitioner and the

2nd respondent are partners and they were running a supermarket

in the name and style of „Sivani Super Market‟. Thereafter some

disputes arose between them. The partnership firm was dissolved

and later the 2nd petitioner started running supermarket as a

proprietary concern. The 2nd respondent was interfering with the

business, as such, the 2nd petitioner filed a suit in O.S.1 of 2014 on

the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court at Proddatur seeking a

permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent and the said suit

is pending. As a counterblast to the suit, the present complaint

was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners, who are

none other than the wife and husband. The averments in the

complaint and the charge sheet disclose that the dispute is purely

of civil nature. If any dispute arises with regard to the settlement of

accounts or closing of business by a proprietary firm, it has to be

settled through Civil Court. The 1st petitioner had settled the

accounts and issued a cheque for Rs.83,850.90 p.s., along with

notice and sent to the 2nd respondent on 12.08.2013 and they were

falsely implicated by the 2nd respondent during the pendency of the

Civil suit against him. Therefore, the continuation of the

proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of

law and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Heard both sides.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

2nd respondent himself had given up his share due to the disputes

between him and the 1st petitioner. Once the liability of the

petitioners is admitted, there is no question of a criminal act. He

would further submit that the matter was compromised between

the parties before Lok Adalat and an award dt.20.09.2014 was also

passed and the 2nd respondent himself had agreed to withdraw the

complaint. For the reasons best known to him, the 2nd respondent

did not act upon, in terms of the compromise and charge sheet that

has been filed in the above crime on 07.11.2014, which is an abuse

of the process of law. If any disputes arise in connection with the

partnership firm, they are to be decided by the trial Court.

Therefore, the petition is liable to the quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that

there is no signature of the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the

award of the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the criminal proceedings

initiated against the petitioners, cannot be quashed on the basis of

the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Hence, the petition may be

dismissed.

8. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, reiterating the

allegations mentioned in the charge sheet. But, nothing could be

elicited except seeking dismissal of the quash petition filed by the

petitioners.

9. Now the point for determination is, Whether there are merits

in the petition to allow?

10. In the decision reported in State of Haryana & Others Vs.

Ch.Bhajanlal and Others1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has laid down

the following guidelines as to when the High Court can exercise its

plenary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the

proceedings. They are,

(1) 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 facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.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 Section 155(2) of the Code;

(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;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under

(7) AIR 1992 SC 604

which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institu- tion and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is 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.

11. It has now to be seen whether a prima facie case is made out

from the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant, for the offence under

Section 420 r/w 34 IPC to proceed with the continuation of the

criminal prosecution is only an abuse of process of the Court.

12. As can be seen from the record, the partnership was

dissolved on 12.08.2013 and a cheque was also sent to the 2nd

respondent along with the notice and as the 2nd respondent was

interrupting the business run by the 2nd petitioner, she filed a suit

in O.S.1 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Proddatur

seeking a permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent and the

said suit was pending. While the matter stood thus, Petitioners 1

& 2 and the 2nd respondent compromised before Lok Adalat and

filed the award dt.20.09.2014 and the compromise was recorded

with the following conditions:

(i) The defendant hereby admitted that the plaintiffs are running the Shivaani Super Market as proprietary and the defendant has no objection run the same.

(ii) The defendant hereby admitted that he settled the accounts in the partnership firm of the earlier Shivaani Super Market and the same was defunct on 22.06.2013. The husband of the plaintiff has paid and as the accounts of the said firm was settled and the defendant has no any disputes, accounts to be settled with the husband of the plaintiff.

(iii) The defendant accepted to withdraw the criminal case in Crime No.130 of 2014 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, which is registered by the II Town Police Station, Proddatur basing on the private complaint forwarded by the defendant against the plaintiffs and her husband. The defendant is hereby admitted that he shall not claim anything or would not file any criminal or civil cases in future against the plaintiff, her husband or Shivaani Super Market which is running by the plaintiff as a proprietary concern.

(iv) The plaintiffs and her husband paid a sum of Rs.20,70,000/- through bankers cheque bearing No.006265, 006266, 006267 and 006268 dated 19.09.2014, drawn by the defendant towards permanent settlement with regard to by earlier partnership firm of Shivaani Super Market, Mydukur Road, Proddatur which was defunct on 22.06.2013.

(v) The husband of the plaintiff No.2 and the defendant agreed to close their joint account bearing No.32781734069 of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Proddatur immediately.

13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the

Assistant Public Prosecutor did not sign on the Award, therefore,

the Award is not binding on the parties. But, the 2nd respondent

himself signed as a party to the suit proceedings. That too, the

award was passed in O.S.1 of 2014. Therefore, the signature of the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the award is immaterial.

But, the award passed in Lok Adalat is binding on the parties.

Unless it is questioned by either of the parties by filing Writ Petition

to set aside the Award. The 2nd respondent has not acted as per

the terms of the compromise. When the matter was settled before

Lok Adalat on 20.09.2014, having received an amount of

Rs.20,70,000/- from the petitioners, the 2nd respondent has not

withdrawn the complaint by complying the Condition No.(iii) in the

award dt.20.09.2014 and the Police filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.130 of 2014 on 07.11.2014 for the offence under Sec.420 r/w

34 IPC only.

14. This Court noticed that a civil dispute was given colour of a

criminal case. When a civil suit has been pending before the

competent court of law, it was opined that the following are the

main points for consideration by this Court.

(1) Whether the complaint filed by the defacto complainant has been moved due to personal vendetta and whether personal vendetta can be made an instrument to initiate the criminal proceedings; and

(2) Whether a criminal colour has been given to the dispute of civil nature which is not permitted under the provisions of law.

15. In the present case, when the 2nd petitioner filed a suit

against the 2nd respondent in O.S.1 of 2014 seeking an injunction,

in view of the intervention by the 2nd respondent, pending suit, the

matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the petitioners paid

the amount as per Clause (4) of the Award and the 2nd respondent

agree to withdraw the criminal case as per Clause (3). But, for the

reasons best known, the 2nd respondent has not withdrawn the

complaint, as such, the police filed the charge sheet. It clearly

shows that the criminal colour has been given to a dispute of civil

nature which is not permissible under the provisions of law, having

received the amount from the petitioners herein in terms of Lok

Adalat award dt. 20.09.2014.

16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Ibrahim and

others Vs. State of Bihar and another2 wherein Hon‟ble Apex

Court has held as under:

"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 subject the accused to harassment. Criminal Courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes".

(10) 2010 (1) ALT (Crl.) 291 (SC) or (2009) 3 SCC 78

17. In the light of the above decision, the matter appears to be

purely of civil nature. There appears to be no cheating or dishonest

inducement. The present F.I.R is an abuse of the process of law.

The purely civil dispute is sought to be given the colour of a

criminal offence, to wreak vengeance against the petitioners.

18. Therefore, in view of the guidelines in the case of State of

Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and Others referred supra,

where the allegations made in the F.I.R and 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

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, the proceedings are liable to be

quashed.

19. On an overall consideration of the entire material placed on

record and the contentions urged before this Court by the learned

counsels before this Court, the law declared by the Hon‟ble Apex

Court in the judgments referred supra, it is suffice to conclude that

the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent are without any substance and the material produced

before this Court directly indicates the malafides in the prosecution

of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, so also, by abuse of

process of the Court, as an arm-twisting method to bring the

petitioners to the terms of the 2nd respondent and to cloak a civil

dispute with criminal nature, has resorted to criminal litigation.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case

to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash

the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.446/2014 pending

on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Proddatur, Y.S.R.Kadapa District for the offence under

Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC.

21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against Petitioners 1 and 2 in C.C.446/2014 pending

on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Proddatur, Y.S.R.Kadapa District for the offence under

Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

Date: 20.09.2022.

Dinesh

L.R.Copy to be marked.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2509 OF 2015

20.09.2022

Dinesh