S.Ananda Rao, Visakhapatnam 6 ... vs State Of Ap, Rep ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4363 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

                            ****
             CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2641 of 2013
Between:

1.     Sanapala Ananda Rao,
       S/o.Suryanarayana, Aged 65 years,
       D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
       Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
2.     Sanapala Sarojini,
       W/o.Ananda Rao, Aged 59 years,
       D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
       Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
3.     Sanapala Sanyasamma,
       W/o.Suryanarayana, Aged 85 years,
       D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
       Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
4.     Sanapala Suresh Kumar,
       S/o.Anandarao, Aged 35 years,
       D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
       Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
5.     Sanapala Lakshminarasimha,
       S/o.Anandarao, D.No.59-25-10/5,
       Setanna Gardens, Madhavadhara,
       Visakhapatnam- 7.
6.     Sanapala Rupavathi,
       W/o.Narasinga Rao, Aged 50 years,
       D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
       Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
7.     Sanapala Santhosh,
       S/o.Narasinga Rao, D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
       Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
                                        .... Petitioners/A.1 to A.7
             And
1.     The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor,
       High Court of A.P., Amaravati.
2.     Satyala Prakash,
       S/o.Late Mutyala Pathrudu, R/o.Plot No.11,
       Sivarampuram, GVMC,
       Visakhapatnam.                              ... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 20-09-2023
                                  2




SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

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

2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be
       marked to Law Reporters / Journals?       Yes/No

3.     Whether His Lordship wish to
       see the fair copy of the Judgment?        Yes/No



                                  DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
                                    3




     * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

             + CRIMINAL PETITION No.2641 of 2013

% 20-09-2023

Between:

1.      Sanapala Ananda Rao,
        S/o.Suryanarayana, Aged 65 years,
        D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
        Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
2.      Sanapala Sarojini,
        W/o.Ananda Rao, Aged 59 years,
        D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
        Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
3.      Sanapala Sanyasamma,
        W/o.Suryanarayana, Aged 85 years,
        D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
        Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
4.      Sanapala Suresh Kumar,
        S/o.Anandarao, Aged 35 years,
        D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
        Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
5.      Sanapala Lakshminarasimha,
        S/o.Anandarao, D.No.59-25-10/5,
        Setanna Gardens, Madhavadhara,
        Visakhapatnam- 7.
6.      Sanapala Rupavathi,
        W/o.Narasinga Rao, Aged 50 years,
        D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
        Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
7.      Sanapala Santhosh,
        S/o.Narasinga Rao, D.No.59-25-10/5, Setanna Gardens,
        Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam- 7.
                                         .... Petitioners/A.1 to A.7
              And
1.      The State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor,
        High Court of A.P., Amaravati.
2.      Satyala Prakash,
        S/o.Late Mutyala Pathrudu, R/o.Plot No.11,
        Sivarampuram, GVMC,
        Visakhapatnam.                              ... Respondents
                                  4




! Counsel for Petitioners   :        Sri Challa Ajay Kumar

^ Counsel for Respondents   :        Asst.Public Prosecutor (State)
< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:
1.    (2020) 13 SCC 435
2.    AIR 1992 SC 604
3.    (2017) 9 SCC 641
4.    (2018) 3 SCC 104
5.    (2013) 11 SCC 673
6.    (2015) 8 SCC 293
7.    2021 SCC Online SC 942
8.    2021 SCC Online SC 976
9.    (2019) 14 SCC 350


This Court made the following:
                                    5




HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
           CRIMINAL PETITION No.2641 of 2013
ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7 seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.676 of 2012 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan

Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence under

Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC, against them.

2. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the charge sheet, are as

follows:

(i) While the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who was a

builder, and his friend viz., L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu,

who was a Teacher in D.A.V.Public School, were searching to

purchase a suitable land in Madhavadhara for development,

through L.W.6(M.Kondalarao), they approached the 1st

petitioner/A.1, who got introduced himself as a landlord and

stated that there is an ancestral property to an extent of Ac.3.00

cents situated in Sy.Nos.291P, 293, 294P and 296P of

Adavivaram Revenue Village, Chinagadili Mandal,

Visakhapatnam and showed the said property physically to

them and also showed some registered documents pertaining to

the year 1922 in the name of Sanapala Yerukamma and also

the subsequent documents and informed them that himself, and

A.2 to A.8 are the legal heirs of Yerukamma and they have

succeeded the said property. Believing the words of the

Petitioner/A.1 and his family members, the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu agreed

to purchase the said land @ Rs.29,99,999/- per acre. The

petitioners/A.1 to A.7 got executed an un-registered sale

agreement on 14.08.2004 in favour of the 2nd respondent/de

facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu, and

received an amount of Rs.8,52,000/- as an advance subject to

the condition that the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 have to clear off all

the pending encumbrances to Simhachalam Devasthanam and

get clearance from the temple authorities and after obtaining

clearance by the executants, the purchasers also have to pay

certain amounts to VUDA towards layout charges. Thereafter,

the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu insisted the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 to get

clearance from the temple authorities. On 21.08.2004, on the

request made by petitioners/A.1 to A.7, an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the 2nd respondent/ de facto

complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu. On the

request of the 1st petitioner/A.1, an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- on

05.09.2004; an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on 28.09.2006 and an

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 03.05.2007 were paid by them to

the petitioners/A.1 to A.7. The total amount of Rs.29,02,000/-

was paid by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and

L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu to the petitioners/A.1 to A.7

from the date of the unregistered agreement of sale dated

14.08.2004.

(iii) After receipt of the above amounts, there was no

information from the 1st petitioner/A.1 regarding clearance from

Simhachalam Devasthanam. Whenever they visited the house of

the Petitioner/A.1, all the accused were found absconding. Then

the 2nd respondent/de facto complaint got a doubt as to whether

the subject land belongs to Simhachalam Devasthanam or to

the accused and whether the accused paid the amount to get

clearance from Devasthanam. On enquiry, they came to know

that either the 1st petitioner/A.1 or any of his family members

are having no right or title over the said land and the entire land

belongs to Simhachalam Devasthanam and that the said

Devasthanam had never issued any proceedings in

R.C.No.C1/7770/89, dated 25.07.1996, in favour of the 1st

petitioner/A.1. Then, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant

and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu demanded the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7 to refund the amount paid by them for

which, the accused warned them with dire consequences. The

Petitioners/A.1 to A.7 in collusion and with a deceptive intention

at the inception cheated them, and without having any title,

they illegally received the amount of Rs.29,02,000/-. As such,

the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu have no option except to lodge a report with the

Police. On the basis of the said report, a case in Crime No.47 of

2012 was registered by Kancharapalem Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City for the offence under Sections 468, 471

and 420 IPC and during the course of investigation,

L.W.9(Investigating Officer) addressed a letter to the Executive

Officer, Simhachalam Devasthanam to know the fact about the

land covered in Sy.Nos.291P, 293, 294P and 296P of

Adavivaram Revenue Village, Chinagadili Mandal,

Visakhapatnam belongs to the petitioner/A.1 or Simhachalam

Devasthanam. The Executive Officer of Simhachalam

Devasthanam (L.W.7) issued a reply dated 29.07.2012 stating

that the subject lands belong to Simhachalam Devasthanam

only. Eventually, having found prima facie evidence against the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7 and A.8 regarding their complicity in the

commission of the said offence, after completion of investigation,

the investigating officer filed a charge sheet in the trial Court

and numbered as C.C.No.676 of 2012 and the said case is now

pending trial. The present petition is filed by the petitioners/A.1

to A.7 to quash the proceedings against them in the above C.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

subject land is the ancestral property of the petitioners as the

same was granted by „Vijayanagaram Raja‟ as an „Inam‟ and the

same was declared by the District Munsif of Vizagapatnam vide

judgment in O.S.Nos.302, 303 and 308 of 1929 dated

11.05.1931, which was also confirmed in A.S.No.470 of 1931 by

the District Judge, Vizagapatnam dated 23.12.1931. Further, he

would submit that having satisfied with the above judgments,

the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu agreed to purchase the subject property and

entered into an unregistered agreement of sale and paid a total

amount of Rs.29,02,000/-. He would further submit that having

been silent for nine years, the 2nd respondent filed the present

complaint alleging that the petitioners have not come forward to

execute the said sale deed on the ground that there is a

litigation pending with Devasthanam. He would further submit

that the petitioners have informed about the litigation at the

time of agreement of sale and the 2nd respondent/ de facto

complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu having

knowledge about the said litigation, filed a false complaint

against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 and A.8. Further he would

submit that the allegations in the complaint are of civil nature.

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu have to pursue their remedy in a competent

Civil Court and the Criminal Proceedings for the said offences

are not maintainable. Further, he would submit that the dispute

in question is purely of a civil nature. In the above facts and

circumstances of this case of nature, initiating criminal

proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 is clearly an

abuse of process of the Court and scope and ambit of Court‟s

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be exercised and therefore, he

would pray for quash of the criminal proceedings against the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the criminal petition. He would submit that the inherent powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C are very wide. The very plenitude of

power requires great caution in its exercise. Further, he would

submit that the Court must be careful to see that the decision in

exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The

inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate

prosecution. Further, he would submit that no hard and fast

rule can be laid down regarding the cases of this nature in

which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction

of quashing the proceedings at any stage. Further, he would

submit that one of the conditions in the unregistered agreement

of sale is that the vendors (Petitioners/A.1 to A.7) should pay

necessary charges/dues to Devasthanam and should obtain

clearance, but they have not acted as per the terms of the

agreement of sale. He would submit that it is clearly alleged that

even before entering into an agreement dated 14.08.2004 the

lands were already in the possession of Simhachalam

Devasthanam. Further, he would submit that during

investigation, L.W.9(Inspector of Police) has addressed a letter to

Devasthanam whether the land covered in respective survey

numbers under the unregistered agreement of sale dated

14.08.2004 belongs to the 1st petitioner/A.1 and his family

members or to the temple and in response to the said letter, the

Executive Officer gave a reply stating that the land covered in

the survey numbers belong to Devasthanam and thereafter the

Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet enclosing the said

letter. It clearly proves that the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 have no

title over the said property covered under the unregistered

agreement of sale and with a deceptive intention at the

inception, the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 showed the forged

documents as genuine and entered into an unregistered

agreement of sale and squandered the money from the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu and therefore, it is a clear case of cheating.

Further, he would submit that after thorough investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet, and as such, the

matter requires trial to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the

said allegations. He would submit that there is no merit in the

contentions of the petitioners that there are no allegations

against them regarding the commission of the offence. Therefore,

he would pray for dismissal of the criminal petition.

6. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions raised

by the learned counsels for both the petitioners and the

respondent/State, in my considered opinion, the first and

foremost issue, which requires determination in the instant case

is:

Whether the allegations made against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 would attract the accusation against them and whether there are any merits in the criminal petition to allow?

POINT:

7. In Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and another1, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:

"10. Before we enter into facts of the present case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to look into the scope and ambit of inherent jurisdiction which is exercised by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. This Court had the occasion to consider the scope and jurisdiction of Section 482 CrPC. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , had elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 CrPC/Article 226 of the Constitution in the context of quashing the criminal proceedings. In para 102, this Court enumerated seven categories of cases where power can be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution/Section 482 CrPC by the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Para 102 is as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79) "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae

1 (2020) 13 SCC 435

and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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 FIR 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 Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, 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."

8. Further, in State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal

and Others2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court at Para No.103 held as

follows:

"103.We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

9. In the light of the above judgments, this Court has to

consider whether the allegations made in the charge sheet

disclose prima facie offence and the matter requires trial to

ascertain the truth or otherwise of the said allegations. It is not

open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into

merits of the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners/A.1

to A.7 and the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this

stage since the ingredients of the offences alleged in the charge

sheet against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 are prima facie made

out and the said disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in

this criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as there is a

clear dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners/A.1 to

AIR 1992 SC 604

A.7 in squandering away the said money of Rs.29,02,000/-

under the agreement of sale without having any title over the

said property. Therefore, it cannot be said that no case is made

out against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7.

10. In Parbatbhai Aahir and others Vs. State of Gujarat and

another3, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:

16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions:

16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court.

16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8. and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance."

11. In view of the principles laid down in the above judgments,

this Court is of the view that the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 colluded

each other and without having any title over the subject

3 (2017) 9 SCC 641

property claimed that they are the legal heirs of Sanapala

Yerukamma and succeeded to the said property by showing the

documents since 1922, which fact has to be decided during the

course of trial. Evidently, contrary to the above said fact, the

Executive Officer, Simhachalam Devasthanam addressed a

letter dated 29.07.2012 to the Investigating Officer that the

subject property belongs to Simhachalam Devasthanam.

Therefore, the allegations in the charge sheet would

demonstrate that there is a civil dispute over the said land

between the parties. The allegations are cheating, fabrication of

documents etc. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and

L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu are deprived of their interest in

the subject land based on the fabricated documents. If the

allegations in the FIR or charge sheet are construed, as they

stand, it is evident that they implicate the serious offences

having bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity

of titles to or interest in land. Such offences cannot be

construed to be merely private or civil disputes, but, implicate

the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime. In these

circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7.

12. In Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

and others4, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held as follows:

"25. The law on the question as to when a registration of the FIR is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled.

26. This Court in State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949] had the occasion to deal with this issue. Y.V. Chandrachud, the learned Chief Justice speaking for three-Judge Bench laid down the following principle: (SCC pp. 576-77 & 598, paras 21 & 66) "21. ... the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under Section 157 of the Code is that the FIR must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under Section 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on. ... The court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.

66. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. ... If on a consideration of the relevant materials, the court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed, the court will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed for collecting materials for proving the offence."

27. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle of law, which was consistently followed by this Court in later years and on perusing the impugned judgment, we are constrained to observe that the High Court without any justifiable reason devoted 89 pages judgment (see paper book) to examine the aforesaid question and then came to a conclusion that some part of the

(2018) 3 SCC 104

FIR in question is bad in law because it does not disclose any cognizable offence against any of the accused persons whereas only a part of the FIR is good which discloses a prima facie case against the accused persons and hence it needs further investigation to that extent in accordance with law.

28. In doing so, the High Court, in our view, virtually decided all the issues arising out of the case like an investigating authority or/and appellate authority decides, by little realising that it was exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code at this stage.

29. The High Court, in our view, failed to see the extent of its jurisdiction, which it possesses to exercise while examining the legality of any FIR complaining commission of several cognizable offences by the accused persons. In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof.

At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the complainants and vice versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine the questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.

31. In our considered opinion, once the court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.

32. The very fact that the High Court in this case went into the minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case and devoted 89 pages judgment to quash the FIR in part led us to draw a conclusion that the High Court had exceeded its powers while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. We cannot concur with such approach of the High Court.

34. On perusal of the three complaints and the FIR mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the complaint and FIR, do disclose a prima facie commission of various cognizable offences alleged by the complainants against the accused persons and, therefore, the High Court instead of dismissing the application filed by the accused persons in part

should have dismissed the application as a whole to uphold the entire FIR in question.

37. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is now necessary that the matter, which is the subject-matter of the FIR in question, needs to be investigated in detail by the investigating authorities in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.

42. Since the FIR is pending for quite some time, we direct the investigating authorities to complete the investigation of the case without any bias and prejudices strictly in accordance with law and proceed ahead expeditiously."

13. In the light of the above decision, in this case huge

amount was received by the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 and

squandered away the same without having title over the subject

property, offered to sell the same with a deceptive intention at

the inception, and cheated the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu.

Subsequently, the 1st petitioner/A.1 failed to pay the amounts to

Simhachalam Devasthanam to get clearance from the date of

the unregistered agreement of sale i.e., 14.08.2004 till lodging

the complaint i.e., 21.01.2012. It clearly shows that without

having any right or title over the property, they gained

wrongfully and have taken an amount of Rs.29,02,000/-. When

the 1st petitioner/A.1 failed to get clearance from Simhachalam

Devasthanam, he should have refunded the money to the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu. Inspite of their requests, the petitioners/A.1 to

A.7 threatened them with dire consequences and thereby it was

inevitable to lodge a report to the Police and based on the letter

of the Executive Officer, Simhachalam Devasthanam stating

that the property belongs to Devasthanam, the charge sheet was

filed by the Police and it is a clear case of fraud and cheating

committed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.7.

14. Therefore, at this stage, this Court could not appreciate

the evidence nor could draw its own inference from the contents

of the F.I.R or the charge sheet and the material relied on. It was

more so, when the material relied on was disputed by the

complainant and vice versa. In such a situation, it becomes the

job of the Investigating Authority. Accordingly, the Investigating

Officer investigated the case and filed charge sheet that the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7 and A.8 created fake documents to the

lands covered in above survey numbers and sold the said

property under the alleged agreement of sale to the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu, without having any title and possession over

the subject property and thereby, cheated them.

15. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 relied

on the judgments in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of

Uttarakhand5, Vesa Holdings Private Limited Vs. State of

Kerala6, Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P & Others 7 and

Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka & Others8.

Having regard to the facts of the case and the evidence on

record, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgments are

not helpful to the case of the petitioners/A.1 to A.7. A given set

of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence

and only because a civil remedy is available to the complainant

that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding.

16. In S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. State of Telangana and

another9, the High Court of Telangana at Para No.16 held as

follows:

"16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra (4) 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 211 (SC) = AIR 2019 SC 847 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might

(2013) 11 SCC 673

(2015) 8 SCC 293

2021 SCC Online SC 942

2021 SCC Online SC 976 9 (2019) 14 SCC 350

lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

17. In the light of the above judgments, the allegations levelled

in the charge sheet against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7, and the

material collected during the investigation, this Court is of the

opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7. A fair investigation is carried out by the

investigating officer and the charge sheet is a detailed one. The

letter dated 03.07.2012 was addressed to the Executive Officer

to ascertain whether the land covered in the above survey

numbers belongs to Devasthanam or not and in response to the

said letter, the Executive Officer had given a reply stating that

the lands covered in the above survey numbers belong to

Simhachalam Devasthanam. In view of the said letters, the

petitioners/A.1 to A.7 with a deceptive intention at the inception

showed the fraudulent documents by saying that as if the said

property is their ancestral property and they are the legal heirs

of said Yerukamma and succeeded to the said property and

these facts are to be decided during course of trial. Therefore, in

the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu even if they filed a suit for specific performance,

they will not get a decree of specific performance because the

said land covered under the unregistered agreement of sale

belongs to Simhachalam Devasthanam. Therefore, the 1st

petitioner/A.1 has no option except to refund the amount to the

2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana

Ranganayakulu, but he did not do so and as such, they are

inevitable to face the trial. Based on the charge sheet, the

cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate and

numbered as C.C.No.676 of 2012. This Court is of the opinion

that there is no legal infirmity in the charge sheet.

18. Considering the totality of the circumstances and the law

declared by the Hon‟ble Apex Court referred to supra, I am of

the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the

proceedings at this stage, leaving it open to the petitioners/A.1

to A.7 to raise such contentions during trial. The power of this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as discussed above, is limited

and the Court cannot quash the proceedings at this stage. There

is also no merit in the contention that the allegations are false

and that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. Whether the

said allegations are true or not is the matter to be decided in the

final adjudication of trial of the case after appreciating the

evidence adduced to that effect by the Prosecution. The said

disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the criminal

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it cannot be said

that no case is made out against the petitioners/A.1 to A.7.

Therefore, there are absolutely no valid legal grounds emanating

from the record warranting interference of this Court, in the

exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the charge sheet, in the facts and circumstances of the

case. Hence, the present criminal petition is devoid of merits

and the same is liable to be dismissed.

19. Resultantly, the present criminal petition seeking quash of

the proceedings in C.C.No.676 of 2012 on the file of the Court of

III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, is hereby

dismissed.

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

shall stand disposed of.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

20.09.2023 DNS Mjl/* L.R.Copy to be marked

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2641 OF 2013

20.09.2023 DNS Mjl/* L.R.Copy to be marked