mere breach of contract, which is essentially civil in nature, criminal colour should not be attached, especially under Section 420 of I.P.C., unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, the allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence nor make out a case against the petitioner/A.2. As such, the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/A.2 are liable to be quashed. Therefore, this Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as very ingredients of the offending Section are not attracted

1

THE HON‟BLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1267 of 2020

CRLP 1267/2020

Thanniru Subba Rao, Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh,

2024:APHC:6963

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

19731 has been filed, by the petitioner/A.2, seeking quashment of proceedings

against him in C.C.No.1288 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, which was registered for the offence

punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

2

2. The facts which led to the filing of this petition are;

a. It is the case of the de facto complainant, who is the Legal Officer as

well as Authorized Representative of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo

Limited, K.J.Complex, Bhagya Nagar, Kurnool, that during the year 2010,

while they were searching for a plot to build the office of their Company at

Ongole Town, Prakasam District, Accused No.1 offered to transfer a plot to an

extent of 120 square yards in Sy.No.151/1, near D.No.6-387 of Sri Rama

Colony, Ongole Town, in favour of the Company and handed over the

possession of the said land along with the original Sale Deed bearing

Doc.No.14245 of 2010, dated 25.09.2010 and the link documents to the de

facto complainant.

b. Accused No.1 also executed an unregistered agreement of sale dated

11.01.2011 for a consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- stating that he was need of

money to save his mother. Accordingly, on the same day, the Company paid

1 in short „Cr.P.C‟

2 in short, „I.P.C.‟

2024:APHC:6963

2

the total consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- to Accused No.1 and the same was

incorporated in the sale agreement deed.

c. Subsequently, Accused No.1 did not execute any regular sale deed and

his whereabouts were also not known. When the Company obtained

Encumbrance Certificate, they came to know that Accused No.1 had executed

another registered Sale Deed dated 26.08.2011 vide Doc.No.12661/2011 in

favour of Petitioner/A.2, who is the friend of Accused No.1, in respect of the

subject land, without the knowledge of the Company.

d. The de facto complainant lodged a report against Accused Nos.1 and 2,

based on which a case in Crime No.104 of 2012 for the offence under Section

420 IPC was registered by Kurnool II Town Police against the accused.

e. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was filed by the Police

before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool for the offence

under Section 420 read with 34 IPC and the same was numbered as

C.C.No.1288 of 2017. This C.C is sought to be quashed by Petitioner/A.2, vide

this Petition. Hence, the Crl.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna, learned counsel for Petitioner,

and Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

representing the State/Respondent No.1. Though notice was sent to

Respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no prima facie

case for the offence alleged is made out against the Petitioner/A.2 and there is

2024:APHC:6963

3

no iota of evidence against the Petitioner/A.2. He would further submit that

initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 is nothing but an

abuse of process of law. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the present

case to bring him to the terms of the de-facto complainant. Further, it is

contended that no specific overt acts are attributed against the petitioner to

attract the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 of the I.P.C.

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

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

petitioner/A2. She would submit that the allegations made against the

petitioner in the complaint would squarely attract the offence under Section

420 read with 34 of the I.P.C and therefore, the criminal proceedings should

not be quashed against A-2.

Point for Determination

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on

perusal of the material, the point for determination that arises is as follows;

Whether the case against the Petitioner/A-2in C.C.No.1288 of 2017 on the

file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool is liable to be

quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determination by the Court

7. 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

2024:APHC:6963

4

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. Specific circumstances warranting

the invocation of the provision must be present.

8. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Madhavrao

Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre3held as follows;

“The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial

stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to

whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the

offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special

features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is

expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.

This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique

purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate

conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served

by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking

into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding

even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

9. While reiterating the position of law laid down by a catena of decisions,

the Apex Court in Ramveer Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P. and

Another

4 held that Section 482 is designed so as to ensure that criminal

proceedings are not used as weapons of harassment by complainants. The

Court further held as follows;

3 (1988) 1 SCC 692

4 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484

2024:APHC:6963

5

“39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the

bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because

the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false

complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent.

However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the

possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged,

after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations

in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the

allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In

exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not

examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in

exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are

frivolous or do not disclose any offence.”

(emphasis supplied)

10. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal

5, the Hon‟ble Apex

Court observed as follows;

“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 pressurise 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 CrPC 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”

(emphasis supplied)

11. In Gulam Mustaffa v. State of Karnataka6, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held

as follows;

“36. What is evincible from the extant case-law is that this Court has been

consistent in interfering in such matters where purely civil disputes, more

often than not, relating to land and/or money are given the colour of

criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial pressure on the

party concerned, which, we reiterate, is nothing but abuse of the process of

the court. …” (emphasis supplied)

5 (2007) 12 SCC 1

6 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603

2024:APHC:6963

6

12. Thus, the saving of the High Court‟s inherent power is to prevent abuse

of process of the Court and is designed to achieve a salutary pubic purpose,

i.e., a Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon

of harassment or persecution.

13. Keen perusal of the complaint submitted by Respondent No.2 would not

disclose any iota of averment against the petitioner/Accused No.2. The case is

that Accused No.1 is the owner of the subject property and he entered into an

agreement of sale with Respondent No.2 for sale of the subject property on

11.01.2011 and despite having entered into the said agreement of sale,

Accused No.1 sold away the property to petitioner/Accused No.2. However,

there is no prima facie allegations to show that the petitioner/Accused No.2

has committed the alleged offence having hand-in-glove with Accused No.1.

14. It is a proposition of law that for mere breach of contract, which is

essentially civil in nature, criminal colour should not be attached, especially

under Section 420 of I.P.C., unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown

right at the beginning of the transaction. This Court in Telikapalli

Padmavathi v. State7, while quashing a criminal proceeding on Section 420

based on omnibus allegations held as follows;

“22. It is also settled principle in law that to attract the offence under

Section 420 of I.P.C., it is essential that there must be dishonest

intention to deceive the other person. As held in Thermax Ltd. supra,

mere mention of the words “cheating” or “deceiving” in the complaint,

without proper averments asserting the role would not attract the

offence. On a perusal of the relevant portions of the complaint already

72023 SCC OnLine AP 3658

2024:APHC:6963

7

quoted, this Court does not find prima facie establishment of the offence

under Section 420.”

15. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal and factual position, the

allegations made in the complaint do not prima facie disclose the commission

of any offence nor make out a case against the petitioner/A.2. As such, the

criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner/A.2 are liable to be quashed.

Therefore, this Court finds that there are justifiable grounds to exercise its

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as very ingredients of the offending

Section are not attracted

16. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against

Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.1288 of 2017 on the file of the Court of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool registered for the offence

punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C., are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________________________

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date:12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6963

8

HON‟BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.1267 of 2020

Dt.12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6963

9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1267 of 2020

Between:

Thanniru Subba Rao, S/o T. Venkaiah alias Venkataiah,

Aged 30 years, R/o D.No.7-310-4, Ongole Town,

Prakasam District.

...Petitioner

And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Amaravathi, through Kurnool II Town PS,

Kurnool District.

2. Y. Sarath Babu, Authorized representative of Sree Rayalaseema HiStrength Hypo Ltd, K.J. Complex, Bhagya Nagar,

Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

 ... 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:6963

10

* THE HON‟BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.1267 of 2020

% 12.01.2024

Between:

Thanniru Subba Rao,, S/o T. Venkaiah alias Venkataiah,

Aged 30 years, R/o D.No.7-310-4, Ongole Town,

Prakasam District. ...Petitioner

And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Amaravathi, through Kurnool II Town PS,

Kurnool District.

2. Y. Sarath Babu, Authorized representative of Sree Rayalaseema

Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd, K.J. Complex, Bhagya Nagar,

Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.

 ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Naidu Siva Rama Krishna

^ Counsel for Respondents : Assistant Public Prosecutor for R.1

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (1988) 1 SCC 692

2. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 484

3. (2007) 12 SCC 1

4. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603

This Court made the following:

2024:APHC:6963