Koti Suryanarayana Babu Boyreddy, vs State Of A.P
2024 Latest Caselaw 9688 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Koti Suryanarayana Babu Boyreddy, vs State Of A.P on 26 October, 2024

APHC010122752021
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3333]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

      SATURDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

                    CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1896/2021

Between:

Koti Suryanarayana Babu Boyreddy,        ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

                                 AND

State Of A P and Others         ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

   1. T NAGARJUNA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

   1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

   2. N RAVI PRASAD

The Court made the following:
                                   2
                                                                   VS,J
                                                       Crl.p_1896_2021


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.152 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukuru, Prakasam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").

2) Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 herein is the complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint alleging that her marriage was performed with one Thota Ramesh on 22.03.2008, later due to family disputes, she started living with her parents and obtained divorce from the said Thota Ramesh. Taking advantage of her divorced life, the petitioner herein induced the complainant with deceitful words that he would manage to purchase the house site at cheaper rate in Hyderabad and received Rs.16,50,000/- from her and also taking advantage of acquaintance, he sexually exploited her and lead extra marital life with her and because of which she gave birth to a female child and finally when the complainant demanded him for return of money, he threatened her with dire consequences that he would see her end if she reveals the same to anyone. Basing on the said complaint, police registered the said complaint as FIR No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Singarayakonda Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 506 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.152 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukuru against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 and 506 of I.P.C. The

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

present petition has been filed by the accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.152 of 2020.

3) Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint filed by her before the police.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 11.10.2017 the petitioner filed civil suit O.S.No.882 of 2017 against respondent No.2 for recovery of Rs.38,97,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. To avoid repayment and to pressurize the petitioner to come for settlement, the complainant launched the present criminal case. Further, the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.2 for creating nuisance in his house, as a counter blast to the said case, the complainant filed the present complaint. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.8308 of 2018 to remove his name in the birth certificate of the child of respondent No.2 issued by the Registrar of Birth and Deaths. Further, the allegations in the complaint do not make out any prima facie case punishable under Section 420 and 506 of I.P.C. and requested to allow the petition.

5) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner took an amount of Rs.16,00,000/- from respondent No.2 and her mother, thereafter, played fraud on her by not returning the said amount with interest though promised to do so, and taking advantage of her innocence, made her to pay the said amount to one builder S.K.Rasool for constructing a house at Singarayakonda, but no such house was constructed at Singarayakonda. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.882 of 2017 against respondent No.2 for

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

recovery of money, which is pending for adjudication, 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 petitioner in C.C.No.152 of 20202 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukuru, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"

P O I N T:

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 existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

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) 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 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 Kumar1"

11) Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine the case on hand.

AIR 1990 SC 494

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

12) The main contention of the petitioner is that he filed civil suit O.S.No.882 of 2017 for recovery of loan amount from respondent No.2, and to avoid repayment and to pressurize him to come for settlement, she filed the present complaint. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.8308 of 2018 requesting to remove his name in the birth certificate of child of respondent No.2 issued by the Registrar, as a counterblast to the said cases, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint, therefore, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 are liable to be quashed.

13) In support of the said contentions, the petitioner relied on the following judgments.

14) In "M.Suresh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2" the Apex Court held that "process of criminal law cannot be pressed into service merely for settling a civil dispute when no offence is committed".

15) In "Inder Mohan Goswami and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others.3" the Apex Court held as follows:

"The powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they

(2018) 15 SCC 273

(2007) 12 SCC 1

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage."

16) In "Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Another 4 " the Apex Court held that "before parting with the case, we would like to sound a word of caution that the Magistrates who have been conferred with the power of taking cognizance and issuing summons are required to carefully scrutinize whether the allegations made in the complaint proceeding meet the basic ingredients of the offence; whether the concept of territorial jurisdiction is satisfied; and further whether the Accused is really required to be summoned. This has to be treated as the primary judicial responsibility of the court issuing process."

17) In "Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar5" the Apex Court held that "it is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception."

18) The law laid down in the said judgments is not in dispute, but the same is not applicable to the present facts of the case as there are cases and counter cases filed by the parties. As per the material available on record, the petitioner filed O.S.No.882 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for recovery of money against respondent No.2 and the same pending for

(2017) 7 SCC 760

(2005) 10 SCC 336

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

adjudication. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.1028 of 2017 claiming damages of Rs.50,00,000/- from respondent No.2, but the same was dismissed for default on 29.10.2019 by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Respondent No.2 and her child filed M.C.No.01 of 2018 before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.50,000/- each and the same is pending for adjudication.

19) Respondent No.2 herein filed the present complaint alleging the petitioner induced her to pay Rs.16,50,000/- under the guise of purchasing a plot in Hyderabad at cheaper rate and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.2 of 2018 on the file of Singarayakonda Police Station. The petitioner herein filed Crl.P.No.2857 of 2018 before this Court to quash the said crime No.2 of 2018. This Court dismissed the said petition holding that the allegations in the complaint are to be adjudicated only at the time of trial.

20) After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.152 of 2020, as Crl.P.No.2857 of 2018 which was filed seeking to quash the crime No.2 of 2018, was dismissed on 24.10.2019, the petitioner again filed the present petition to quash the C.C.No.152 of 2020 (crime No.2 of 2018).

21) Respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner induced her to pay an amount of Rs.16,50,000/- under the guise of purchasing a plot at Hyderabad for cheaper rate and exploited her sexually; as a result of extramarital life with the petitioner, she gave birth to a female child. The petitioner filed civil suits against respondent No.2

VS,J Crl.p_1896_2021

and respondent No.2 filed maintenance case and the present complaint against the petitioner. On the earlier occasion also, while dealing with Crl.P.No.2857 of 2018 filed seeking to quash the present complaint at crime stage, this Court held that as the complainant alleged that the petitioner has cheated her and taken money from her, the same has to be adjudicated only at the time of trial.

22) In view of the serious allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner about the extramarital life and exploitation of money from her, the truth or otherwise will be decided only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

23) Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

24) The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand

closed.

________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 26.10.2024 Ksp