A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.

* THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.213 of 2020

% 12.01.2024

Between:

1. Yarlagadda Venkata Satyaveni, W/o Bala Phani Trinath Ankineedu

Prasad, Aged about 43 years, R/o Peddapudi village,

East Godavari District.

2. Yarlagadda Bala Phani Trinath Ankineedu Prasad, , S/o late Kondala

Rao Chowdary Aged 60 years, R/o Pedapudi village, Pedapudi Mandal,

East Godavari District.

...Petitioners

AND

1. Koppolu Rama Rao, S/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 57 years

R/o D.No. 75-10-4/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2. Koppolu Vijaya Kumar, S/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 51 years,

R/o D.No. 75-10-4/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court

of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

 ...Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora

^ Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor for R.3

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1992 SC 604

2. (2013) 11 SCC 673

This Court made the following:

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.213 of 2020

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731

is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, seeking

quashment of proceedings against them in C.C.No.377 of 2017 on the file

of the Court of II Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila

Magistrate, Vijayawada,

2

for the offence punishable under Sections 420

and 464 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

3

2. Brief facts of the case, are as follows:

a. The first complainant and Accused No.1 have jointly purchased an

extent of 3,358 square yards of site in Mogalrajapuram in R.S.No.24 NTS

No.50, Block No.8, Revenue Ward No.11, vide a registered sale deed dated

12.01.1971 and the said property was partitioned equally.

b. Petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the wife and husband who are

alleged tobe vendees of Accused No.1 and Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the son

and grandson of Accused No.1 and Accused No.6 is the son-in-law.

c. Accused No.1 sold away her share of property to one Gottipati

Ravanamma, vide two separate registered sale deeds dated 12.10.1981 and

15.10.1981 through her GPA holder B.Sriramulu. Since then, Gottipati

Ravanamma has been in possession of the said site. While so, on

1

for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2

For short ‘Magistrate Court’

3

for short ‘I.P.C.’

2024:APHC:6967

2

22.09.2004, the first complainant had noticed a publication in Andhra

jyothi daily that they were intending to buy Item Nos.1 and 2 from Accused

Nos.1 and 2 and invited objections. The sale agreement shows that it was

executed by GPA holder of Accused No.1 in favour of Accused No.2.

d. The first complainant got issued reply paper publication clearly

stating about the execution of false and frivolous registered sale deeds in

favour of Accused No.2 to an extent of 219.5 square yards which belongs to

the first complainant and that Accused Nos.1 and 2 have no locus standi or

right to sell the said property.

e. It is stated that Accused Nos.3 to 6 have deliberately cooperated

with Accused No.1 in the conveyance of registration of GPA-cum sale

agreement and also sale deed with an intention to deprive the first

complainant of her right and created fake documents to grab the property.

f. Based on the private complaint lodged by the first complainant, a

case in C.C.No.171 of 2007 was registered against Accused Nos.1 to 6 and

thereafter the case against Accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 was split up and

renumbered as C.C.No.377 of 2017. The said C.C is sought to be quashed

by Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3, vide this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing

the State/Respondent No.3. None appeared for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2024:APHC:6967

3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Accused No.1

and the Complainant No.1 died, and that the case against Accused Nos.4

and 5 was ended in acquittal with a clear finding that the prosecution had

failed to prove that Exs.P.9 and 12 are fake documents. It is submitted

that Petitioner No.1 is the Accused No.2 who purchased the property from

Accused No.1 vide Ex.P.9. He would further submit that involvement of

Accused No.3 is not at all alleged except stating that he is the husband of

Accused No.2. Continuation of criminal case against the present petitioners

is sheer abuse of process of the Court. Hence, prayed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

5. Refuting the arguments referred to above, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case

against petitioners. She would submit that the allegations made against

the petitioners in the complaint would squarely attract the offences

alleged against the petitioners and therefore, the criminal proceedings

should not be quashed against petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing

both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment

of the proceedings in C.C.No.377 of 2017 against the

Petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420

and 464 read with 34 I.P.C?

2024:APHC:6967

4

7. Inherent powers, are, as the word suggests, inalienably present in

the Court. They are not conferred, but are merely safeguarded and

preserved by provision under Section 482 to the High Court. 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 trial court or 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.

8. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision

must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others4

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 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

4 AIR 1992 SC 604

2024:APHC:6967

5

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 FIR 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.

2024:APHC:6967

6

(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)

9. In the present case, the first complainant took two contrary pleas.

On one hand, they allege that the first complainant along with Accused

No.1 had executed a GPA in favour of one B.Sriramulu and said Sriramulu

had sold the property of Accused No.1 to Gottipati Ravanamma and that

Accused No.1 along with other accused had created some fake documents.

On the other hand, they say that said GPA which was entered with

B.Sriramulu had been revoked. This itself is sufficient to prove that the

said complaint given by the complainant is false.

10. Further, during cross examination in C.C.No.171 of 2017, P.W.1

admitted that Accused No.1 and Complainant No.1 had executed a GPA in

favour of B.Sriramulu and B.Sriramulu executed a deed in the name of

Babburi Sujatha. He also admitted that B.Sujatha has filed three

declaration suits vide O.S.Nos.399/2012, 400/2012 and 401/2012 alleging

that she purchased the property, vide the agreement dated 04.12.1979

executed by Complainant No.1 and Accused No.1. This shows that the

2024:APHC:6967

7

matter is of civil nature and there is no specific overt act on the part of

the petitioners. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision in

Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others5 wherein, the

Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No.12 held as follows:

“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used

sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the

process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends

upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential

ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be

judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil

transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High

Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil

nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if

a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has

happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to

quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of

the court.”

(emphasis supplied)

11. Further more, the case against Accused Nos.4 and 5 ended in

acquittal. The present case would undoubtedly fall for the exercise of the

power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The criminal proceedings

may also be quashed where there is a clear abuse of process of the Court

or when the criminal proceedings are found to have been initiated with

mala fides/ malice to wreak vengeance or to cause harm or where the

allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. In that view of the

matter, basing on the facts and circumstances, continuation of criminal

proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to an

abuse of process of law.

5

(2013) 11 SCC 673

2024:APHC:6967

8

12. On an overall consideration of the entire material placed on record

and the decisions referred to above, and the law declared by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, it is suffice to conclude

that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/

Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the material produced before this Court directly

indicate the mala fides in initiation of criminal proceedings against the

petitioners, so also by abuse of process of the Court, to bring the

petitioners to the terms of the Complainant and to cloak a civil dispute

with criminal nature.

13. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, and the proceedings

against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.377 of 2017 on the

file of the Court of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila

Magistrate, Vijayawada, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and

464 read with 109, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________

 JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6967

9

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.213 of 2020

Dated: 12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6967

10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.213 of 2020

Between:

1. Yarlagadda Venkata Satyaveni, W/o Bala Phani Trinath Ankineedu

Prasad, Aged about 43 years, R/o Peddapudi village,

East Godavari District.

2. Yarlagadda Bala Phani Trinath Ankineedu Prasad, , S/o late Kondala

Rao Chowdary Aged 60 years, R/o Pedapudi village, Pedapudi Mandal,

East Godavari District.

...Petitioners

AND

1. Koppolu Rama Rao, S/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 57 years

R/o D.No. 75-10-4/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2. Koppolu Vijaya Kumar, S/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 51 years,

R/o D.No. 75-10-4/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court

of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

 ...Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 12.01.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Her Lordship wish to

see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

____________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

2024:APHC:6967

11

* THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.213 of 2020

% 12.01.2024

Between:

1. Yarlagadda Venkata Satyaveni, W/o Bala Phani Trinath Ankineedu

Prasad, Aged about 43 years, R/o Peddapudi village,

East Godavari District.

2. Yarlagadda Bala Phani Trinath Ankineedu Prasad, , S/o late Kondala

Rao Chowdary Aged 60 years, R/o Pedapudi village, Pedapudi Mandal,

East Godavari District.

...Petitioners

AND

1. Koppolu Rama Rao, S/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 57 years

R/o D.No. 75-10-4/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

2. Koppolu Vijaya Kumar, S/o Srinivasulu, Aged about 51 years,

R/o D.No. 75-10-4/2, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada.

3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court

of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

 ...Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora

^ Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor for R.3

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. AIR 1992 SC 604

2. (2013) 11 SCC 673

This Court made the following:

2024:APHC:6967