Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Imran Khan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 June, 2024
Author: K Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Sreenivasa Reddy
APHC010486192023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3327]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7354/2023
Between:
Imran Khan and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Pradesh and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SURYAM GANNAVARAPU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. A K KISHORE REDDY
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7354 OF 2023
ORDER:
-
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.447 of 2022
on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Vijayawada. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A.1,
A.4 and A.5 in the said C.C.
2. A charge sheet has been filed as against the
petitioners and others, for the offences punishable under
Sections 365, 447, 323, 506, 342, 143 read with 149
IPC. The allegations, in brief, are as follows.
2nd respondent/ defacto complainant was working
in Ahad Cooling Solutions, A.C. show room situated in
Eluru road, Vijayawada. A.1 approached the firm and
obtained quotation from 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant for purchasing 8 AC units and gave a
cheque for Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of the firm viz.
Ahad Cooling Solutions. It is further alleged that when
it was informed that stock was not available and it would
take three months' time to deliver the product, A.1
accepted. The cheque was handed over to the owner
Naseer Khan. In January, 2020, 2nd respondent started
pipeline work for fixing the ACs in the house of A.1, by
taking Rs.1.00 lakh cash, and informed that after getting
stock of ACs, work would be completed. In the month of
November, 2020, A.1 enquired 2nd respondent, he replied
that he was not working in Ahad Cooling Solutions and
told to ask the owner Naseer Khan. When A.1 asked the
owner, he told to send the remaining Rs.2.00 lakhs as
per quotation so that he would bring the product and
also stated that due to lock down, previous order was
cancelled. A.1 gave another Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name
of Ahad Cooling Solutions. Thereafter, neither 2nd
respondent nor his owner responded. On 11.12.2020
at about 9.30 PM, A.1 to A.5 together went to house of
2nd respondent, and A.1, A.5 and A.4 were present at the
car and A.2 and A.3 together went to house of 2nd
respondent and asked him to come down for talking, and
when he came down, he was forcibly taken away in their
car to house of A.1. On information, brothers of 2nd
respondent (LWs 2 to 4) rushed there and questioned the
act of the accused. At that time, A.6 beat them and they
forcibly took away 2nd respondent into house of A.1 and
threatened him to see his end if he does not give their
amount and sent him away from the house. Hence, the
accused kidnapped 2nd respondent, criminally
trespassed into house of 2nd respondent and voluntarily
caused hurt with hands and wrongfully confined him
and threatened with dire consequences to see his end in
furtherance of their common object.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended
that there are civil disputes pending with regard to
return of money and execution of pending works,
between 2nd respondent and petitioners herein, and as a
counter blast to the demand made by A.1 and A.2 either
to return their money or to execute the work, 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant resorted in filing the
present complaint, with the active connivance of one Mr.
Nazir, and hence, he seeks to quash the impugned
proceedings as against the petitioners.
The learned counsel relied on a decision in Ravi
Dhingra v. State of Haryana1
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd
respondent contended that the allegations in the police
report, Section 161 CrPC statements and charge sheet
would make out a prima facie case for the offences
alleged as against the petitioners, and hence, there are
no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
1st respondent-State contended that there are specific
accusations as against the petitioners and the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are all
disputed questions of fact, which have to be decided
during the course of trial.
6. There cannot be any dispute that inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be
exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give
1 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 167
effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends
of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact 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 and that the Court
would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as
to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is
pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.2,
wherein the Apex Court held,
"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
2 AIR 1992 SC 604
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
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
F.I.R. 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 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."
7. Perused the record.
8. The allegations are that 2nd respondent/
defacto complainant was working in Ahad Cooling
Solutions, A.C. show room situated in Eluru road,
Vijayawada. A.1 approached the firm and obtained
quotation from 2nd respondent/defacto complainant for
purchasing 8 AC units and gave a cheque for Rs.5.00
lakhs in the name of the firm viz. Ahad Cooling
Solutions. When it was informed that stock was not
available and it would take three months' time to deliver
the product, A.1 accepted. 2nd respondent handed over
the cheque to the owner Naseer Khan. In January,
2020, 2nd respondent started pipeline work for fixing the
ACs in the house of A.1, by taking Rs.1.00 lakh cash,
and informed that after getting stock of ACs, work would
be completed. In the month of November, 2020, A.1
enquired 2nd respondent as to when ACs would be fixed,
for which the latter replied that he was not working in
Ahad Cooling Solutions and told to ask the owner Naseer
Khan. When A.1 asked the owner, he told to send the
remaining Rs.2.00 lakhs as per quotation so that he
would bring the product and also stated that due to lock
down, previous order was cancelled. A.1 gave another
Rs.2.00 lakhs in the name of Ahad Cooling Solutions.
Thereafter, neither 2nd respondent nor his owner
responded. On 11.12.2020 at about 9.30 PM, A.1 and
his brother A.2 and A.4, along with car driver A.5, were
proceedings towards house of 2nd respondent at
Gollapudi by car No.AP16DP 9395, and on their way, A.3
also met at Kummaripalem, and A.1 to A.5 together went
to house of 2nd respondent, and A.1, A.5 and A.4 were
present at the car and A.2 and A.3 together went to
house of 2nd respondent and asked him to come down for
talking, and when he came down, he was forcibly taken
away in their car to house of A.1. On information,
brothers of 2nd respondent (LWs 2 to 4) rushed there and
questioned the act of the accused. At that time, A.6 beat
them and they forcibly took away 2nd respondent into
house of A.1 and threatened him to see his end if he
does not give their amount and sent him away from the
house. Hence, the accused kidnapped 2nd respondent,
criminally trespassed into house of 2nd respondent and
voluntarily caused hurt with hands and wrongfully
confined him and threatened with dire consequences to
see his end in furtherance of their common object.
9. Insofar as petitioners/A.1, A.4 and A.5 are
concerned, the accusation that has been made as
against them is that A.1 to A.5 together went to house of
2nd respondent on the fateful day, where the petitioners/
A.1, A.4 and A.5 were present at the car and A.2 and A.3
went to house of 2nd respondent, which is situated in
second floor and asked him to come down for talking.
When he came to the car, he was forcibly taken away to
the house of A.1 at Tarapet. Thereafter, A.6 is alleged to
have beat brothers of 2nd respondent, who came there
and questioned the act of the accused, and 2nd
respondent was threatened to give back the money which
has been paid by A.1 for fixing of ACs in his newly
constructed house. The accusation has been made as
against A.6 is that he is alleged to have beat brothers of
2nd respondent. The question that arises for
consideration is whether prima facie offence under
Sections 365 and 447 would attract as against the
petitioners/A.1, A.4 and A.5 or not.
10. 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is alleged
to have been taken away by the accused only for the
purpose of negotiations, as an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs
was paid to 2nd respondent, who was working in Ahad
Cooling Solutions, A.C. show room situated in Eluru
road, Vijayawada and 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant or his owner was not responding either to
fix the ACs in the house of A.1 or he was not repaying
the said amount to A.1. Only in connection with that, he
was taken to the house of A.1. Insofar as petitioners/
A.1, A.4 and A.5 are concerned, no specific overt-act has
been attributed as against them, except to the extent
that 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was taken
away to the house of A.1. It is not the case of the
prosecution that having taken 2nd respondent/defacto
complainant to the house of A.1, he was detained in the
house of A.1 for the reason that after negotiations, he
was sent back to his house. Apart from that, L.Ws.2 to 4
(brothers of 2nd respondent) who were aware of the fact
that 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was taken to
the house of A.1, have gone to the house of A.1. By
virtue of the same, it can be safely inferred that 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant was not kidnapped by
the accused. If really 2nd respondent/ defacto
complainant was kidnapped, question of L.Ws.2 to 4
(brothers of 2nd respondent) coming to know of the same
would not have gone to the house of A.1 and at the same
time, after negotiations of the accused, the 2nd
respondent/defacto complainant would not have been let
off immediately. It is not the case of prosecution that the
petitioners beat 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, none of the
offences that have been mentioned in the charges would
attract. In view of the aforesaid reasons, continuation of
the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners/
A.1, A.4 and A.5 is nothing but abuse of process of
Court.
11. The Criminal Petition is allowed. The
proceedings in C.C. No.447 of 2022 on the file of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are hereby
quashed as against the petitioners/A.1, A.4 and A.5 are
concerned.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the
Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
19.06.2024
DRK
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7354 OF 2023
19.6.2024
DRK
