Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Muddam Seetha vs State Of Ap., on 24 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7146 OF 2018
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), praying to call
for the records pertaining to C.C.No.55 of 2018 pending on the
file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Giddaluru, and to quash the same.
2. On the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein,
learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddaluru,
has taken cognizance of the case and issued summons to face
trial for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 379 I.P.C.
Assailing the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
3. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent.
4. The pith and substance of the case of the complainant is
that the 1st petitioner/A1 has executed an agreement of sale
dated 17.11.2013 for an extent of Acs.1.25 cents in Sy.No.231/4
of Salakalaveedu village and the 1st petitioner/A1 has delivered
the possession to the complainant and thereby he was in
possession of the property and when a demand was made by the
complainant, the 1st petitioner/A1 has refused to register the
sale deed in favour of the complainant and therefore the
complainant was constrained to file suit, i.e., O.S.No.292 of 2014
on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur, for specific
performance and also filed an I.A. for temporary injunction
pending disposal of the suit and injunction was granted and he
raised green gram and while at the time of harvesting stage, the
1st petitioner/A1 with the support of the other accused, i.e., A2
to A5, has cut the crop and taken away, thereby he caused the
mischief and theft by trespassing into the property. On the
aforesaid complaint, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for
the aforesaid offences and issued summons.
5. The same was assailed in the present Criminal Petition on
the ground that the land in Sy.No.231/4 of Salakaveedu village,
which belongs to the daughter of the complainant and the same
was purchased by way of registered sale deed vide document
No.335/2010, which was registered in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Cumbum, and the complainant, having sentiment that
he should purchase the said land, which belongs to his mother,
has created a false agreement of sale and filed the suit
O.S.No.292 of 2014 and the I.A. which was filed for temporary
injunction was dismissed and the suit which was filed for
specific performance was dismissed for default on 21.06.2019.
As the 1st petitioner/A1 has not agreed to sell the property to the
complainant, the present case was maliciously instituted against
the 1st petitioner/A1 and other accused, by forging the signature
of the petitioner/accused No.1 and created a false agreement of
sale.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that the present issue is civil in nature and in order to
give colour of criminal texture, it was maliciously instituted
against the petitioners and the report lodged to the police was
referred as false. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others1,
wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explored certain
guidelines and one of the guideline is that 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, which is a ground for
(1992) 1 SCC 335
quash the proceedings and the complainant in the present case
has maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, as the 1 st
petitioner/A1 has not agreed to sell the property to the
complainant. Therefore, the 1st petitioner/A1 and other accused
would pray to quash the proceedings.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would
submit that the truth or otherwise of the aforesaid facts have to
be decided during the course of trial by leading evidence, when
there is prima facie offence was alleged in the complaint and
therefore, he would pray to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
8. On analyzing the aforesaid facts, it is an admitted fact that
the 1st petitioner/A1 has purchased the property from the
complainant and also an admitted fact that an I.A. filed for
temporary injunction was dismissed by an order dated
20.12.2016 and the date of offence is 23.02.2017, as alleged in
the complaint. It is writ large that the present complaint is filed
after dismissal of the Interlocutory Application, which is filed for
temporary injunction, in order to give criminal texture of the civil
dispute and dismissal of interlocutory application would discern
that the complainant was not in the possession of the property,
and the present complaint was maliciously presented and it is
not denied by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-
complainant that the suit was dismissed for default and he
would further contend that he has filed restoration petition and
that he has not furnished any number to that extent.
9. Order of dismissal of the I.A. which was filed for temporary
injunction itself shows that the complainant was not in
possession of the property and it is an admitted fact that the 1 st
petitioner/A1 was the owner of the property, vide registered sale
deed document No.335/2010 of Sub-Registrar Office, Cumbum,
and the document clearly and categorically shows that the 1 st
petitioner/A1 is in possession of the property. In order to give
colour of criminal offence texture, the present case is maliciously
instituted by the complainant.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another2, Peethambaran vs. State
of Kerala and another3, Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs. State of U.P.
and others4, Randheer Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others5 and Usha Chakraborty and another vs. State of West
(2020) 13 SCC 435
2023 SCC Online SC 553
2022 SCC Online SC 1634
(2021) 14 SCC 626
Bengal and another6, has categorically held that when a dispute
of civil nature and given a colour of criminal offence, High Court
should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of law.
11. As seen from the plaint averments, the 1st petitioner/A1
was not agreed to re-sale the property. Therefore, in order to
give colour of criminal texture, the complaint was filed
maliciously against the petitioners herein. The plaint averments
would indicate that the 1st petitioner/A1 was in possession of the
property, the ingredients of Sections 447, 427 and 379 IPC have
no application to the present facts of the case, as the
complainant was not in possession, trespass, mischief or theft of
the property would not arise and as per the order of dismissal in
I.A.No.912 of 2014 in O.S.No.292 of 2014 dated 20.12.2016
would confirm the same, the complainant has categorically
admitted that the property was sold to the 1st petitioner/A1 and
they are in possession of the property and therefore the
ingredients of the aforesaid Sections have no application to the
present facts of the case and in order to give texture of criminal
2023 SCC Online SC 90
offence, the present complaint was lodged by the complainant
and the said complaint is an abuse of process of the Court.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court would not hesitate to
quash the proceedings as the present complaint was maliciously
instituted against the petitioners herein.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.55 of 2018
on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Giddaluru, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any in
this case, shall stand closed.
________________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 24.01.2024
siva
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7146 OF 2018
Date: 24.01.2024
siva
