Judge vs Assistant Public Prosecutor For
2023 Latest Caselaw 3728 AP

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.5917 of 2019

ORDER:

Mr.Jagini Sai Krishna filed this Criminal Petition under

Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of charge sheet in

C.C.No.89 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District.

2. Respondent No.1 is State. Respondent No.2 is defacto

complainant. Despite notices, none entered appearance on

behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for petitioner and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 submitted

arguments. The point that falls for consideration is:

"Whether continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.89 of

2015 would be an abuse of process of law and continuance

of such proceedings could not be in the ends of justice?"

POINT:

Sri Katta Venkataramana/respondent No.2 herein filed a

complaint before learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet and in terms of Section 156(3) of CrPC, it was

forwarded to the jurisdictional police. In obedience to those

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

orders, Narasaraopet I Town Police Station registered Cr.No.201

of 2010. After due investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Narasaraopet I Town Police Station filed the Charge Sheet before

learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet and

cognizance was taken and case was registered as C.C.No.302 of

2011. The said case was against A1 to A4. A3 therein is Sri

Jagini Sagar alias Jagini Sai Krishna S/o Nagabushanam. The

proceedings in C.C.No.302 of 2011 went further. During the

pendency of the proceedings A1, A2 and A4 appeared before the

learned trial Court. A3 had not appeared before the learned trial

Court. In those circumstances, the learned trial Court split up

the case as against A3 and registered the split up case as

C.C.No.89 of 2015. It is that C.C.No.89 of 2015 which is sought

to be quashed by A3. It may be mentioned that in the Criminal

Petition in the cause title, the petitioner described himself as

A1. That is an obvious mistake since the body of the petition

described him as A3 and the material referred above would also

indicate him as A3.

4. The substance of the charge sheet is for the offences

under Sections 420,448,452,323,506 read with 34 IPC which

allege that A1 and A2 are spouses and A3 and A4 are their sons.

A1 and A2 have been running Sai Krishna Enterprises which

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

deals with Petroleum Products dealership situate at Nalgonda

Town. They were looking for investments in their business. It

was during that time defacto complainant was introduced to A1

and A2. The bargain between A1 and A2 on one side and the

defacto complainant on the other side was that defacto

complainant had to invest money in the business of A1 and A2

and thereafter for a period of one year A1 and A2 would run

their business with that investment and after expiry of one year

A1 and A2 would transfer the business in the name of defacto

complainant. In fact, upon that promise, the defacto

complainant paid Rs.13,00,000/- on 15.12.2007 and paid

Rs.20,00,000/- and another Rs.5,00,000/- during the

subsequent periods and those amounts were received by A1 or

A1 and A2.

5. Using those investments, A1 and A2 successfully ran

their business. However, A1 and A2 did not transfer the

business in the name of defacto complainant and did not return

the money which they obtained from defacto complainant. They

were avoiding the demands of defacto complainant. It is then

alleged that on 03.10.2010 at about 7:00 pm, A3 and A4 along

with some other unidentified persons criminally trespassed into

the house of defacto complainant and A3 kept a knife on defacto

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

complainant and abused him in filthy language and kicked him

with hands and legs and criminally intimidated him and caused

minor injuries on the body of defacto complainant. They told

him that A1 and A2 would not return the money and would not

transfer the dealership and warned him not to interfere with

them. By listing 7 witnesses, prosecution intended to prove its

case.

6. In this Criminal Petition arguing on behalf of the

petitioner, learned counsel Sri C.Raghu submits that the role

attributed to this petitioner/A3 is with reference to 03.10.2010

when he allegedly trespassed into the house of defacto

complainant and criminally intimidated him and caused hurt to

him. Learned counsel submits that by that date the present

petitioner was not in India and he was residing in USA as he left

on 19.07.2010 and returned to India on 22.11.2014. Learned

counsel submits that he also filed copies of entries in the

passport in proof of this contention. Learned counsel further

submits that the false allegations are levelled and without any

investigation, charge sheet was laid and in fact the parent case

in C.C.No.302 of 2011 was tried by the learned Magistrate and

that ended in acquittal and therefore continuance of the present

case is only waste of time and sheer abuse of process of law.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

7. As against it, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits

that the allegation in charge sheet prima facie indicate

commission of offence and the truth or otherwise of the

contentions shall be considered only at the trial and there is no

reason to quash the criminal proceedings.

8. Having considered all those facts and circumstances, the

following undisputed facts are required to be recorded here:

The judgment dated 18.01.2016 of learned I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class - Cum - I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Narasaraopet in C.C.No.302 of 2011 is on record.

Trial against A1,A2 and A4 was taken up for the charges under

Sections 420,448,452,323,506 read with 34 IPC. Necessary

charges were framed and they were read out to accused and

they denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. Thereafter,

despite availing 14 adjournments and despite memo issued to

prosecution and police, no witness was ever tendered before the

learned trial Court to establish the case of prosecution. It was in

those circumstances, the learned trial Court found A1, A2 and

A4 not guilty for all the charges and accordingly acquitted them

of all the charges. As stated earlier, A3 therein is the petitioner

herein and his case was split up and became C.C.No.89 of

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

2015. State could not assure that in C.C.No.89 of 2015 it would

produce any witness for proving its case.

9. These facts and circumstances by themselves indicate

that the prosecution against A3 is not to secure any ends of

justice. The allegations in the charge sheet would show that all

the monitory transactions mentioned therein were between

defacto complainant and A1 and A2. Even according to

prosecution, this petitioner/A3 is not engaged in business and

he is not assisting his parents in the business and he did not

receive any money from the defacto complainant. Therefore, the

major offences under Sections 420 and 452 IPC have no

connection to the conduct alleged against this petitioner. List of

witnesses filed by the prosecution and the contents of charge

sheet show that the victim was not subjected to any medical

examination and the knife that was allegedly there in the hands

of A3 was never recovered and no whisper is made against it in

the charge sheet. The only allegation against this petitioner is

that he criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and

kicked him with hands and legs. That allegedly occurred on

03.10.2010. As the passport copies indicate this A3 was not in

India and he was in USA from a period earlier to 03.10.2010

and also for a long time subsequent thereto. Thus, there is

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

physical impossibility of his presence at the alleged scene of

offence which is sought to be demonstrated by the petitioner.

Though such defence version does not merit for consideration in

a quash petition, yet in the light of what happened to the parent

calendar case, this Court while exercising its inherent powers

cannot overlook that submission of the petitioner which

remained undisputed by the state.

10. In these circumstances, this Court finds that further

continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.89 of 2015 would be an

abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this criminal petition

deserves to be quashed.

11. Point answered in favour of the petitioner.

In the result, this criminal petition is allowed. Proceedings

in C.C.No.89 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Junior

Civil Judge - Cum - I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Narasaraopet is quashed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 27.07.2023 DVS

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.5917 of 2019

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5917 of 2019

Date: 27.07.2023

DVS