Telangana High Court

Janupalli Durga Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 22 December, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

      CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 2160, 2685 and 3099 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:

      All these Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.324 of 2020 of

Manuguru Police Station, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered

against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable under

Section 420 read with Section 109 of I.P.C.

      Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3099 of 2021 is A-1, who is

the wife of the 2nd respondent; petitioners in Criminal Petition

No.2160 of 2021 are A-2 and A-3, who are the parents of A-1 and

petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2685 of 2021 is A-4, who is the

lawyer of A-1, in the above crime and they are hereinafter referred to

as A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report on

21.09.2020 stating that his marriage was performed with A-1 on

07.12.2008 and they were blessed with a child. It is stated that as per

the instructions of her parents-A-2 and A-3, A-1 used to quarrel with

the 2nd respondent by showing silly reasons and that she filed

M.C.No.8 of 2013 against him. They got into a settlement on

14.09.2020 through elders at Lok Adalat, in which, A-1 has taken

Rs.20.00 lakhs from the 2nd respondent. As per the said final

settlement and after taking twenty lakhs, A-1 has given an

undertaking that she would not file any civil or criminal cases against

him and further she has to give divorce in H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2019,

which was filed by her on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem. After taking Rs.20.00 lakhs from him, A-1 filed a

Memo before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, without

mentioning the payment of Rs.20.00 lakhs, and got dismissed the said

H.M.O.P. on 03.12.2019. It is also stated that A-1 filed D.V.C.No.4 of

2020 against the 2nd respondent and his family members before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manugur, with an intention to

extract an additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs and Rs.15,000/- per

month and that the above acts of A-1 to A-3 are contrary to the terms

and conditions of the award passed by the Lok Adalat. It is further

stated that the above said cases were filed as per the instructions of

A-4, who is the lawyer of A-1. Basing on the said complaint, the

Police, Manuguru Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.324 of

2020 against the petitioners-A-1 to A-4 for the offences punishable

under Section 420 read with Section 109 of I.P.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State; learned

Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused would submit that

initially the 2nd respondent and A-1 led a happy matrimonial life for

some time and thereafter, the 2nd respondent started harassing A-1 on

flimsy reasons under the instigation of his family members; that even

after the birth of a male child, the attitude of the 2nd respondent did

not change, but drastically become more violent towards his wife and

started harassing A-1 to bring more dowry from her parents, if not, to

give divorce to him so that he can get married again and as such A-1

has been living separately along with her son, however, the 2nd

respondent never invited her to join with him. It is further submitted

that A-1 filed M.C.No.8 of 2013 and by an order, dated 25.08.2015, the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, granted an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance of A-1 and her son and since the 2nd

respondent failed to comply with the said order, A-1 filed

Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2019 seeking to issue Non Bailable Warrant

against the 2nd respondent for non-compliance of the orders passed in

M.C.; that during pendency of the said petition, the matter was

placed before the elders and the same has been settled for

Rs.35,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and pursuant to the

said settlement, an agreement was executed on 02.03.2019 in the

presence of the elders; that as per the settlement terms, the 2nd

respondent agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- in cash, house site

admeasuring 150 square yards situated at 8th Ward of Rajamundry

worth Rs.10,00,000/- to be registered in favour of A-1 and in case the

plot is not worth of Rs.10.00 lakhs, the difference amount will be paid

by the 2nd respondent and also L.I.C. bond with a maturity value of

Rs.10.00 lakhs by 2024 will be transferred to A-1, failing which, civil

and criminal action will be initiated against the 2nd respondent. It is

further submitted that only an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was received

by A-1 on 17.07.2019 and on 04.09.2019, but not the full amount, as a

result of which, A-1 approached the local police and the District Legal

Services Authority to take action against the 2nd respondent and to set

aside the Lok Adalat Award passed in L.A.C.No.90 of 2019.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, on the legal advice and in collusion

with Counsels, forced to withdraw M.C. and Enforcement Order. It

is further submitted that the 2nd respondent has not complied with

the Lok Adalat Award and also the terms of agreement entered into

between the parties. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent filed

W.P.No.20407 of 2020 before this Court to direct the police to take

action against the accused and the same was dismissed on 18.11.2020

and against the said order, the 2nd respondent filed W.A.No.545 of

2020 and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn. It is further

submitted that the 2nd respondent with an ill-motive lodged the

present false complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of process of

law. It is further submitted that after a compromise between the

parties, an award was passed in L.A.No.90 of 2019, but the same was

not executed in its true letter and spirit and the agreement entered

into between the 2nd respondent and A-1 also not complied with by

the 2nd respondent and subsequently, the 2nd respondent started

harassing A-1 through his family members to withdraw the case from

District Legal Service Authority, which was filed by A-1 to set aside

the L.A.C.No.90 of 2019, dated 14.09.2019. It is also submitted that

due to the harassment and pressure from the 2nd respondent and his

family members, A-1 approached A-4 and filed D.V.C.No.4 of 2020.

If the 2nd respondent had paid the agreed amount as per the

agreement dated 02.03.2019, the question of filing D.V.C. would not

arise. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent filed Crl.P.No.1613

of 2020 seeking quashing of the proceedings in D.V.C. and this Court

granted stay on 05.03.2020 and after obtaining stay order only the 2nd

respondent filed the present complaint in order to harass the

petitioners.

Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that A-1

has violated the terms and conditions of the award passed in

Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2019, dated 14.09.2019 and after receiving the

amount and in order to extract additional amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs

and Rs.15,000/- per month, A-1 filed D.V.C.No.4 of 2020, which

amounts to cheating and as such, there are no grounds to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1 in which Hon'ble Apex

Court has laid down the following guidelines.

"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 extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we

(1992) SCC (Crl.) 426

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 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 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 F.I.R. 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."

In the instant case, the case of the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant is that in the compromise petition, though A-1 has

agreed that she will not file any civil and criminal cases against the

person and properties of the 2nd respondent in future claiming herself

as wife and received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, she filed D.V.C.

No.4 of 2020 against him and his family members.

A perusal of the material available on record would show that

A-1, along with her son, filed M.C.No.8 of 2013 against the 2nd

respondent seeking maintenance. By an order, dated 25.08.2015, the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, granted an amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards monthly maintenance of A-1 and her son and as

the 2nd respondent failed to comply with the said order, A-1 filed

Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2019 for enforcement of the said order. During

pendency of the said petition, the matter was placed before the elders

and the same has been settled for Rs.35,00,000/- towards full and

final settlement and pursuant to the said settlement, an agreement

was executed on 02.03.2009 in the presence of the elders. A perusal of

the agreement, dated 02.03.2019, would show that as per the

settlement terms, the 2nd respondent agreed to pay Rs.15,00,000/- in

cash, house site admeasuring 150 square yards situated at

Rajamundry worth Rs.10,00,000/- to be registered in favour of A-1

and in case the plot is not worth of Rs.10.00 lakhs, the difference

amount will be paid by the 2nd respondent and also L.I.C. bond with a

maturity value of Rs.10.00 lakhs by 2024 will be transferred to A-1,

failing which, civil and criminal action will be initiated against the 2nd

respondent. The record also discloses that only an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- was received by A-1 on 17.07.2019 and on 04.09.2019,

but not the full amount. On 09.09.2019, a compromise petition was

filed by both A-1 and the 2nd respondent and an award was passed on

14.09.2019. Thereafter, H.M.O.P.No.51 of 2019 filed by A-1 was

withdrawn on 03.12.2019. The record also discloses that an amount

of Rs.10,00,000/- has been transferred to the account of A-1 from the

account of one of the elders by name Tulluri Brahmaiah and the 2nd

respondent had transferred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 04.09.2019.

Since the 2nd respondent failed to comply with the terms and

conditions of the agreement, A-1 made a representation before the

Chairman and Secretary to the Legal Services Authority, Khammam,

seeking cancellation of the award passed in L.A.C.No.90 of 2019. A-1

filed D.V.C.No.4 of 2020 against the 2nd respondent and his family

members. The record also discloses that the 2nd respondent filed

Crl.P.No.1613 of 2020 before this Court to quash the proceedings in

D.V.C.No.4 of 2020. By an order, dated 05.03.2020, this Court granted

stay of all further proceedings in the said case. The record also

discloses that the 2nd respondent filed W.P.No.20407 of 2020 before

this Court to direct the police to take action against the accused,

which was dismissed on 18.11.2020 and against the said order, the 2nd

respondent filed W.A.No.545 of 2020 and the same was also

dismissed as withdrawn. That apart, the record also discloses that

A-1 also filed not press memo in D.V.C. to withdraw the complaint

and as such the same was referred to Lok Adalat on 12.12.2020.

In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal2 the Apex

Court observed as under:

"46. The Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the Accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible Rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained."

In the instant case, as per the aforesaid facts and circumstances

of the case, it is clear that since the 2nd respondent failed to comply

(2007) 12 SCC 1

with the terms and conditions agreed upon in the agreement dated

02.03.2019, A-1 filed D.V.C., and the present complaint is filed by the

2nd respondent only in order to settle his scores with A-1, without

complying with the terms of the agreement, dated 02.03.2019.

Having regard to the principles laid down by the Apex Court

in the cases referred to above and for the aforementioned reasons,

this Court is of the view that continuation of proceedings against the

petitioners/A-1 to A-4 would be an abuse of process of law and the

same are liable to be quashed.