Adari Ravikumar, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5194 AP

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


            CRIMINAL PETITION No.2857 of 2021

ORDER:

A1 and A2 in C.C.No.87 of 2018 on the file of learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam filed this criminal

petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal

proceedings against them.

2. Respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant on whose

written information Cr.No.12 of 2017 was registered by

Muvvalavanipalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam and the same

was investigated into by the Inspector of police and the State

filed charge sheet before the learned Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Visakhapatnam where it was taken cognizance of and

was numbered as C.C.No.87 of 2018. Therefore, the State is

made as respondent No.1.

3. The offences alleged against the accused are under

Sections 354A, 420, 506, 328 read with 34 IPC and Section

20(B)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985. The following facts are required to be noticed.

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

On 11.01.2017, 2nd respondent Smt. P.Ramadevi lodged a

written information and FIR was issued. After due investigation

charge sheet was laid as against A1 and A2. Both accused are

spouses to each other. The de facto complainant is stated to be

CFO in Uranium Software Solutions Private Limited. She is the

resident of Visakhapatnam. Both accused are also residents of

Visakhapatnam. It is stated that during January, 2016 A1

approached the de facto complainant and told her he was the

owner of Vikas Builders and showed her a brochure and

explained her that at low rates he could sell plots or constructed

flats. He also took her to certain areas and showed her various

apartments and houses and represented to her that he could

arrange for sale of some of the immovable properties at low

rates. Believing his words, on various occasions she made

payments to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/-. It is further alleged

that A1 also informed the de facto complainant that he along

with his wife have been doing business in jewelry and if she had

old ornaments he could get them studded with diamonds. He

also told her that he had Dubai connections for this gold

business. Believing his words various gold articles totally

weighing 12 Tulas were given by her to him to make them

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

studded with diamonds. It is also stated that on the invitation of

A1, the de facto complainant went to park hotel and thereafter

accused took her in his car bearing No.AP 31 DC 4969 and

during the travel he offered certain prasadam to her which was

already mixed with intoxicants. De facto complainant consumed

the prasadam and experienced drowsiness and during that time

A1 attempted to put his hand on her chest and outrage her

modesty. She cried loudly and upon that A1 left her there and

went away. It is thereafter de facto complainant inquired and

came to know that jewelry she had given to A1 were sold out by

both the accused at Lalitha Jewelry during November, 2016. It

is then she lodged the written information to police. During the

course of investigation police searched the office premises of A1

and seized his car and certain documents and they also found

black coloured substance and seized them and samples were

procured and they were subjected to chemical analysis at

Regional Prohibition and Excise Department at Visakhapatnam.

The scientific experts reported saying that the said substance

was Hashish oil which was from the extract of Cannabis Sativa

Linn (Ganza). During investigation several witnesses were

examined and their Section 161 CrPC statements were

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

recorded. Some of these witnesses stated that they witnessed

the de facto complainant giving money to A1, and some of these

witnesses stated that they witnessed the de facto complainant

handing over gold jewelry to A1 and some of the witnesses were

employees in Lalitha Jewelry and they stated about the accused

selling the old gold jewelry and some of the witnesses are

witnesses to search and seizure of contraband from the

accused. De facto complainant in her Section 161 CrPC stated

about written receipts passed by the accused with reference to

some part of the money received from her and about availability

of messages received from the accused concerning the

transactions and also stated about possessing audio recordings

between her and the accused. She also stated about both the

accused receiving gold jewelry from her and making a promise

to her that they would return them after they got the jewelry

studded with diamonds and also about receipt of money by both

of them. One of the witnesses is stated to be the owner of a

property where A1 obtained a portion of the building on rent

stating that he was a practicing Advocate at Hyderabad and he

had cases at Visakhapatnam and therefore he wanted office

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

premises and thus obtained lease of the property and put up his

board as an Advocate. Charge sheet listed 21 witnesses.

4. In the present criminal petition accused seek to set aside

the above said charge sheet on the following grounds: -

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the de

facto complainant borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from A1 on

09.04.2013 and executed promissory note and thereafter failed

to repay the debt despite demands and notices and therefore he

filed O.S.No.1069 of 2014 and the same is pending before

learned Senior civil Judge, Visakhapatnam and a copy of the

plaint is filed for reference. Learned counsel submits that to

bring A1 to terms this false case was foisted by de facto

complainant. It is further contended that the charge sheet is

silent about motive and intention of the accused in indulging in

the alleged crimes.

5. A perusal of the charge sheet does not indicate the

pendency of civil suit between parties. The crimes alleged in this

case took place during the year 2016. The pronote transaction

between the parties and civil suit pertain to the year 2013 and

2014. Since the civil suit is not part of the charge sheet it

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

becomes a piece of evidence for defence. While quashing the

criminal case, it is normally not permissible to consider any

material brought by the accused and the quash petition has to

be considered based on the material that is brought by the State

alone. The accused is at liberty to take up his defence at the

relevant time before appropriate court if and when they are so

required to take the defence. Absence of motive in the charge

sheet cannot be a ground to quash the charge sheet since

motive is not one of the essential elements constituting a crime.

Considering the nature of allegations mentioned in the charge

sheet absence of motive being disclosed by the charge sheet is

no ground to quash the charge sheet. Coming to the question of

intention, the element of mens ria is to be deciphered from the

acts alleged against the accused. A reading of the charge sheet

makes one to appreciate that the nature of the facts do indicate

mens ria. Therefore, this contention of petitioners is negatived.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that charge sheet

alleges recovery of narcotic substances from the premises that is

in occupation of A1 but the charge sheet itself indicates its

failure to comply the law with reference to procuring the

samples of the contraband. Leaned counsel cited Simranjith

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

Singh V. State of Punjab1and Union of India V. Mohanlal2.

The purport of the above judgments is that in terms of Section

52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 when a contraband was seized, samples were to be picked

up under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

In Simaranjith's case, the accused were convicted by trial court.

Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on

analysis of the facts and relying on the law laid down in

Mohanlal's case held that when there was failure to draw

samples in accordance with law, that recovery alleged against

the accused becomes doubtful. Neither of these rulings have

laid down that failure to comply with Section 52A of Narcotic

Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a ground to

quash charge sheet. It may be noted that the seizure of a

contraband may occur in different contexts. For instance, on

receipt of a prior information the investigating police may catch

an accused and recover contraband. While doing routine duties

of checking the vehicles police may come across possession of

contraband by certain persons. It is also possible that while

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570

(2016) 3 SCC 379

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

investigating one crime pertaining to certain alleged offences,

the police may come across a contraband by chance. The

procedural formalities are not similar in all these instances.

These aspects will have to be considered by the court trying the

case. For the present case at hand since the charge sheet

mentioned allegations prima facie indicate that the investigating

police found contraband in possession of the accused, the same

cannot be ignored. A serious offence of this nature is required to

be put to test at trial and in these quash proceedings such a

trial process cannot be short circuited. Therefore, while the

petitioners are at liberty to agitate their legal contentions about

the seizure and procedural irregularities, the same cannot be a

ground to quash this charge sheet. Therefore, this contention of

the petitioners is negatived.

7. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there is

inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and

statements recorded in Section 161 CrPC are stereo type and

the witnesses are hear-say and one does not corroborate the

other. That the offences alleged are purely personal in nature

and they have no impact on the society. That the accused had

no previous criminal antecedents. It is also argued if a case

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

where facts prima facie show that they are civil in nature and

are converted into a criminal case power under Section 482

CrPC has to be exercised by this Court and quash the

proceedings. Learned counsel cited Syed yaseer Ibrahim V.

State of Uttar Pradesh3. That was a case where the dispute is

concerning an immovable property and the civil litigation was

pending between the accused and the victim. One party

propounded a will and the other side propounded a gift and

during the pendency of the civil suit certain alienations took

place. It was in the context of those facts when the offence

under Section 420 IPC was alleged against the accused their

Lordships were pleased to quash the same holding that the

principles underlying Section 420 IPC were not found in the

case. Learned counsel for petitioners also cited Randheer

Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh4. That was a case in which

an immovable property was sold by a power of attorney in

favour of the accused therein. On obtaining a registered

conveyance, the entries in the Revenue records were mutated in

the names of the accused. Subsequently, it was found that the

2022 SCC Online SC 271

(2021) 14 SCC 626

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

power of attorney holder of the purported vendor possessed only

a fake power of attorney. In such facts and situation, the

purchasers were made parties and offences under Sections 420,

467, 468 and 471 IPC were alleged against the purchasers. In

those fact situation their Lordships held that the contents of the

charge sheet were vague and they did not disclose how and in

what manner the accused were connected to the alleged fake

General Power of Attorney. In such circumstances their

Lordships quashed the case. The principle laid down in this

ruling is to the effect that the dispute is civil in nature but is

given colour of criminal offence and the courts have to guard

against such conversion and in appropriate cases court is

entitled to quash the proceedings. Their Lordships also held

that the power under Section 482 CrPC shall be used sparingly

for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Learned counsel for

petitioners also cited Usha Chakraborty V. State of West

Bengal5. In that case their Lordships held that on facts it was

found that that the genesis of transaction was civil in nature

and the complaint filed was found very vague, devoid of any

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

specifics with reference to the offences alleged. In such

circumstances and in the light of pending civil cases the case

was quashed.

8. The allegations in the charge sheet at hand indicate about

the accused claiming to procure certain immovable properties

for purchase by the victim and the victim believing the same

changed her position and handed over Lakhs of Rupees to the

accused. The allegations also prima facie show accused making

the victim to believe that they would get the jewelry studded

with diamonds and the victim believing it changed her position

and handed over old jewelry to them. Charge sheet further

alleges that the accused neither returned money nor got the

properties registered in favour of the victim and the accused did

not get the jewelry studded with diamonds and did not return

the jewelry and on the other hand disposed of that jewelry as if

it was their jewelry. These allegations prima facie indicate the

offence of cheating under section 420 IPC. Whether they are

true or false is a matter not for the consideration of this court

exercising jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC. Those facts are

to be sorted out at the trial before the competent court. The

allegations further indicate accused making the victim to

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

consume prasadam mixed with intoxicants and indulged in

sexual abuse. The case diary also indicated accused disclosing

to house owner that he was an Advocate and disclosed himself

to be a person engaged in business of construction of villas to

the victim. What is his occupation and whether he is an

Advocate or a businessman is not clarified in the present

criminal petition by the accused. All these facts when read in

the context of the other allegations make it a case for trial and

not a case for quashment. There are absolutely no merits in the

contest raised in this petition by the accused.

9. In the result, this criminal petition is dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

Date: 30.10.2023

Dvs

Dr. VRKS, J Crl.P.No.2857 of 2021

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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2857 of 2021

Date:30.10.2023

Dvs