Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Yannana Subba Rao And 6 Others vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And 3 Others on 5 August, 2024
APHC010817952018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11623/2018
Between:
Yannana Subba Rao And 6 Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
and Others
AND
State Of Andhra Pradesh And ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
3 Others and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. K SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Peddapuram, East Godavari District, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").
2) Petitioners herein are the accused. Respondent No.4 is the
complainant. Respondent No.4 filed a complaint on 11.03.2018
stating that he is the resident of Rangampeta Village and eking out
his livelihood by attending agriculture labour works. His wife
Y.Kumari has got house bearing D.No.2-94/1 in Ac.0.13 cents of
land. Thereafter, some disputes arose between complainant's family
and the family of his brother Y.Subba Rao, petitioner No.1 herein,
complainant filed a civil case in Peddapuram about 9 years back
and the said civil case is pending in the Court. Further, the
complainant alleged in the complaint that he constructed a thatched
house and living there. While things stood thus, on 11.03.2018
petitioners trespassed into complainant's land and removed the
shed, when the complainant questioned them, the petitioners said
that the Court passed order in their favour and beat the complainant
with hands. Thereafter, when Y.Kumari came to the scene of
offence and tried to pacify the issue, the petitioners beat her with
hands and threatened her with dire consequences. Basing on the
said complaint, a case in Crime No.53 of 2018 on the file of
Rangampeta Police Station was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 323 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.
After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet, and the
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
same was numbered as C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the file of Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Peddapuram.
3) The present petition is filed to quash the said C.C.No.259 of
2018 on the ground that the wife of the complainant filed
O.S.No.295 of 2010 against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for permanent
injunction and for recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards
damages, but the same was dismissed on 14.02.2018. After
dismissal of the said suit, complainant filed the present complaint
with false allegations. Further, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein filed
suit O.S.No.53 of 2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court,
Peddapuram against the complainant and his wife for declaration
and for permanent injunction, wherein the Court directed both the
parties to maintain Status quo. The allegations made in the
complaint are purely civil in nature and would not constitute the
offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 read with 34 of
I.P.C, requested to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.259 of 2018.
4) Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that on
11.03.2018 the petitioners trespassed into the land of complainant,
pushed him and beat him with hands, and when the wife of
complainant interfered, the petitioners beat her with hands and
threatened with dire consequences. Immediately, after the incident,
complainant went to the police and lodged a report against the
petitioners. The allegations made against the petitioners in the
complaint would constitute offence punishable under Sections 447,
323, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the
petition.
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
5) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the
alleged acts of the petitioners are sufficient to conclude that the
petitioners committed offence punishable under Sections 447, 323,
506 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition.
6) Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on
record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Peddapuram, are liable to be quashed by
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"?"
7) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
8) Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious
proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it
must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can
lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be
useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the
advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to
prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration
of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court
exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section
482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be
exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external
in nature to meet the ends of justice.
9) Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long
line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
10) In "R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1 ", the Apex Court laid
down the following principles:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against
an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court
or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure
the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of
sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there
is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly
or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
11) Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the
High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the
process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of
the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in
cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
AIR 1960 SC 866
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken
by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not,
however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of
the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it
appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the
statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the
offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that
the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there
would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held
by the Apex Court in "Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2"
12) In "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3 " the Apex Court
considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482
and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or
FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down
the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of
their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(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.
AIR 1990 SC 494
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
(3) Where the 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 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
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.
13) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine
the case on hand.
14) The main allegation made in the complaint lodged by
respondent No.4 is that on 11.03.2018 at about 09.00 a.m. the
petitioners entered into the land of complainant, removed the shed,
and beat him with hands. Thereafter, when Y.Kumari, wife of the
complainant, came to the scene of offence and tried to pacify the
issue, the petitioners beat her with hands and threatened her with
dire consequences. The complainant admitted in his complaint that
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
he filed a civil suit against the petitioners with regard to title of the
land in dispute.
15) It is evident from the record that the wife of complainant filed
suit in O.S.No.295 of 2010 against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for
permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the
plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property,
which is a thatched house and site bearing D.No.2-94/1 in
S.No.50/2 situated at Rangampeta Gramapanchayat and for
recovery of an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages, but the
same was dismissed on 14.02.2018. After dismissal of the said suit,
the complainant lodged the present complaint on 11.03.2018
alleging that the petitioners entered into his land and beat him.
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 also filed suit O.S.No.53 of 2018 for
declaration and permanent injunction against the complainant and
his wife. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners and wife of the
complainant filed civil suits against one another, out of which, the
suit O.S.No.295 of 2010 filed by the wife of the complainant was
dismissed. If the dispute is purely civil in nature and conversion of
such civil dispute giving colour of criminal offence is abuse of
process of Court. Having lost the civil suit, the present complaint
has been lodged by the complainant converting the civil dispute into
criminal, which cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in various judgments.
16) In "Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and
another4" the Apex Court held as follows:
(2009) 8 SCC 751
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
"This Court has time and again drawn attention to
the growing tendency of the 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."
17) In "Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others 5"
the Apex Court held that, while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of
justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not
depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also
have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and
is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court
should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse
of process of Court.
18) In "Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 6" the
Apex Court held that when civil suit is pending where the ownership
(2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673
(2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
of the property has to be decided in the pending suit as the same is
subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil
litigation, criminal proceedings cannot be primarily prosecuted.
19) In the instant case, the suit O.S.No.295 of 2010 filed by the
wife of respondent No.4 was dismissed, and after dismissal of the
said suit, the present complaint has been filed. Further, the suit
O.S.No.53 of 2018 filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 against
respondent No.4 and his wife, is pending. Therefore, it can be said
that the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of a criminal
offence. Further, it is found that the criminal proceedings were
maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle the civil
disputes. Even if the complaint allegations are taken into
consideration, one cannot conclude prima facie, that the
petitioners/accused had committed the alleged offences. Since the
dispute is civil in nature, this Court is of the view that the criminal
proceedings ought not have been allowed to continue as it would
prejudice the interests of the parties and the stand taken by them in
the civil suit.
20) In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. A purely civil
dispute is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak
vengeance against the petitioners/accused or to pressurize them to
settle the civil disputes. Hence, continuation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners/accused would amount to abuse of process
of Court. Therefore, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed.
VS,J
Crl.P._11623_2018
21) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the
proceedings in C.C.No.259 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Peddapuram.
22) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
05.08.2024
Ksp
