Joginipalli Kamalakar Rao vs The State Of A.P. Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1157 Tel

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                        CRL.P.No. 2462 of 2013

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-1

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings

initiated against him in Crime No.110 of 2013 of Karimnagar Rural

Police Station, Karimnagar District, which was registered against the

petitioner/A-1 and another for the offences punishable under

Sections 467, 468, 470, 471 and 420 of I.P.C.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant (hereinafter referred

to as "the 2nd respondent") filed a private complaint alleging therein

that the petitioner/A1 with a mala fide intention fabricated an

agreement of sale, dated 24.05.2011, as if it was executed by the 2nd

respondent, in respect of lands in Sy.Nos. 112/B, 183/A, 171, 225, 228,

219 and 198 situated at Theegalaguttapalli Village, Karimnagar

District, having received advance sale consideration of Rs.9.00 lakhs

and also agreeing to receive the remaining sale consideration. Basing

on the said agreement of sale, the petitioner filed O.S.No.312 of 2012

and obtained ad interim temporary injunction vide I.A.No.1243 of

2012 on 22.11.2012, restraining the 2nd respondent from alienating the

said property to third parties until further orders. It is also alleged

that the petitioner/A1 colluded with A-2 and created the document

by forging the signature of the 2nd respondent/complainant and

hence they have committed the offences under Sections 467, 468, 470,

471 and 420 of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the said private

complaint to the Police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for

investigation and report. The Police, Karimnagar Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2013. The present Criminal

Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said Crime.

Though notice served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on

his behalf. Hence, heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-1,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and

perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

contents of the complaint do not disclose any ingredients of the

alleged offences. The agreement of sale was executed by the 2nd

respondent by receiving advance sale consideration in the presence of

four attesting witnesses. It is further submitted that the 2nd

respondent himself purchased the stamp papers in the name of the

petitioner and prepared the agreement and that there is no question

of creating the above document in collusion with A-2. It is also

submitted that if the said document is forged one, certainly, the 2nd

respondent should have made the witnesses as accused. The 2nd

respondent agreed to sell the lands fell to his share after partition

with his brothers. Since the 2nd respondent refused to execute the

registered sale deed by receiving the remaining sale consideration,

the petitioner/A1 filed a suit for specific performance and obtained

interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from alienating the

suit schedule land. The agreement of sale dated 24.05.2011 is

genuine one and the 2nd respondent himself executed the said

agreement of sale in the presence of four attesting witnesses and also

received Rs.9.00 lakhs as advance and a civil suit is also pending and

as such it apparent that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is also

submitted that filing of the complaint by the 2nd respondent against

the petitioner/A1 and another after filing of the civil suit by the

petitioner against the 2nd respondent, is ill-motivated and it amounts

to sheer abuse of process of law and hence the criminal proceedings

against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while opposing the

Criminal Petition submitted that whether the 2nd respondent has

entered into sale agreement with the petitioner or the petitioner has

created the forged and fabricated document, is the matter of evidence

which will be gone into at the time of trial and not at this stage and

accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the criminal petition.

In Devendra v. State of U.P.1, the Apex Court held as under:

"A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."

(2009) 7 SCC 495

In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others2 Hon'ble

the Apex Court has held as under:

"Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.

In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.

The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant by the Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the

(2011) 7 SCC 59

money nor was he in any way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law."

In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and

another3 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:

"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of 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 pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."

In the instant case, a perusal of the material on record would

show that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had agreed to sell

the subject land in favour of the petitioner/A1 and also executed an

agreement of sale in the presence of four attesting witnesses on

24.05.2011 after receiving advance sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-.

Further, since the 2nd respondent failed to execute the registered sale

deed, the petitioner filed O.S.No.312 of 2012 for specific performance

of agreement of sale, dated 24.05.2011, with regard to the subject land

and the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.

By an order, dated 23.11.2012, the learned Senior Civil Judge, granted

interim injunction in respect of the disputed land restraining the 2nd

(2009) 8 SCC 751

respondent from alienating the schedule property to any third party

until further orders and after receiving the summons in the said suit,

the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had filed the present private

complaint, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of

Cr.P.C. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for

the petitioner/A-1, the matter appears to be purely civil transaction

between the parties and the same virtually converted into criminal

proceedings and as such the party should not be unnecessarily

dragged to the Criminal Court. Applying the principles of the Apex

Court in the judgments referred to above to the facts of this case and

for the above said reasons, I am of the considered opinion that this is

a fit case where continuation of the criminal proceedings amounts to

abuse of process of Court. Further, it will cause great injustice and

inconvenience to the petitioner, if such proceedings are not quashed

and allowed to be continued.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings in Crime No.110 of 2013 of Karimnagar Rural Police

Station, Karimnagar District, against the petitioner/A-1, are hereby

quashed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 09.04.2021 Gsn/gkv.