Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Segu Sudhakara vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 June, 2024

APHC010053722021             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                         PRADESH
                                                                 [3396]
                                      AT AMARAVATI
                               (Special Original Jurisdiction)
               FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
                             PRESENT
  THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
                       CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 950/2021
Between:
    SEGU SUDHAKARA, S/O LINGAIAH AGED 56 YEARSM, R/O
    FLAT     NO.2085,   VENKATESWARA        PALESA,3RD   LANE
    ,BRUNDAVA GARDENS ,GUNTUR 522006.
                                        ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
                             AND
    1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
       PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA
       PRADESH
    2. GOTTIPATI SRIKAKSHMI, W/O RAMANAIAH AGED 45
       YEARS,R/O      KAMEPALLI     VILLAGE       ,JARUGUMALLI
       MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT
                              ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
    1. ARUN SHOWRI GORREMUCHU
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
    1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
    2. K RAJANNA

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to

quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.39 of 2021 on the file of

1 for short 'Cr.P.C'

Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the offences

under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code2.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

a) In the year 2014, Respondent No.2, through her brother-in-

law who does real estate business, purchased six plots bearing Nos.39,

40, 41, 47, 48 and 49 in the name of her husband, in Veda Bhoomi

Heights from Petitioner/Accused, who is its Managing Director, paid an

amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs and got executed an agreement to that effect.

b) Petitioner/Accused promised to Respondent No.2 to get the

said plots registered, after obtaining approval from C.R.D.A, but, till now

no approval was granted by the C.R.D.A. On enquiry, Respondent No.2

came to know that the said land was mortgaged to some third parties and

without obtaining any approval from C.R.D.A., Petitioner/Accused got

registered some plots to some others.

c) As the Petitioner/Accused neither registered the plots nor

returned the advance amount paid by Respondent No.2, she lodged a

report with the Police, which is registered as a case in Crime No.39 of

2021 of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District, for the offences

under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Grounds for quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case,

Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the

2 for short 'IPC'

proceedings against him on the following grounds:

i) Petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence

much less the alleged offence.

ii) Petitioner is falsely implicated in the present crime

eventhough he has nothing to do with the alleged offence.

iii) Present complaint has been lodged with false and vexatious

allegations without any truth only to bring pressure on the Petitioner.

iv) The present complaint is of civil nature and there is no

criminal liability against the Petitioner.

v) The averments made in the complaint do not make any

offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

vi) The said agreement is valid for only three months and the

Complainant having done nothing for more than six years against the

agreement of sale, has now filed the criminal complaint without

approaching the civil Court, which would clearly show that the present

criminal proceedings are initiated only to threaten the Petitioner and as

such, the present complaint is liable to be quashed.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit by reiterating the averments

made in the complaint.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

5. Heard G.Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Petitioner,

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the

State/Respondent No.1 and Sri K.Rajanna, learned counsel for

Respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that it is a

civil dispute to which the Complainant intends to give the colour of

criminal offence. It is submitted that, after six years of the alleged

agreement of sale, the present complaint has been filed stating that the

advance amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs was given to the Petitioner. Learned

counsel would further submit that the Complainant was not ready and

willing to perform his part of contract.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that

there are specific allegations against the Petitioner/Accused and the truth

or otherwise of the said allegations has to be revealed during

investigation. At this stage, the proceedings against the

Petitioner/Accused cannot be quashed.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

Point for determination

9. Now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner/ Accused in Crime No.39 of 2021 on the file of Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur District?

Determination by the Court

10. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code

envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or

affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to

any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any

Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in

Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court

of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice,

depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers

must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or

glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal

jurisprudence.

11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision

must be present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential

to discuss some precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others 3 is

considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras

102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows;

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant pro- visions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exer- cise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent pow- ers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and re- produced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent

AIR 1992 SC 604

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 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 ac-

cepted 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 cogni- zable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magis- trate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com- plaint 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 investi- gation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Mag- istrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so ab- surd 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 pro- visions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a crimi- nal 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.

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."

(emphasis supplied)

12. A bare perusal of the complaint and the material on record would

disclose that the brother-in-law of Respondent No.2, who was in real

estate business, having got acquaintance with the Petitioner/Accused,

introduced Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner, who laid a venture in

Yetukur Village, Guntur District in the name and style of Vedha Bhoom

Heights. Respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with the

Petitioner/Accused for sale for six plots bearing Plot Nos.39, 40, 41, 47,

48 and 49 for a total extent of 1000 square yards in Sy.Nos.370/A and

370/B of Yetukur Village at the sale price of Rs.7,300/- per square yard

for a total consideration of Rs.73.00 lakhs and paid advance sale

consideration of Rs.35.00 lakhs i.e., Rs.2,50,000/- by way of a cheque

drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Ameerpet Branch, Hyderabad and cash of

Rs.32,50,000/- on the condition that the Petitioner should get C.R.D.A.

approval before the date of registration and to register the plots in the

name of Respondent No.2 on receiving the balance sale consideration.

Thereafter, the Petitioner failed to get the approval of C.R.D.A and failed

to register the plots. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 came to know that

the Petitioner had already executed registered sale deed vide

Doc.No.4997/2018, dt.14.05.2018 etc., in favour of third parties and

thereby cheated Respondent No.2.

13. It is appropriate to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra4,

Hon'ble Apex Court held that the only question that should be checked at

Section 482 jurisdiction is as to whether the complaint discloses a prima

facie case or not and defences that may be available in future need not

be considered. It was held as follows:

"9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted." (emphasis supplied)

14. In the instant case, there are specific allegations levelled in the

complaint against the Petitioner/Accused that, being a real estate broker,

he had received an amount of Rs.35.00 lakhs from Respondent No.2

towards advance sale consideration in respect of the Plot Nos.39, 40, 41,

47, 48 and 49 and failed to register the same in favour of Respondent

No.2 by receiving balance sale consideration, however, registered some

of the plots in the name of third parties without getting approval from

C.R.D.A. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as well as a

criminal offence, therefore, only because a civil remedy is available to the

(2019) 14 SCC 350

complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal

proceeding, since there is verifiable material to be decided during trial.