Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case 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 has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

CRIMINAL PETITION No.242 of 2020

Between:

Pidiyala Bujji Babu, S/o. Mohan Babu,

Aged about 32yrs, R/o. Jujjuru village,

Veerulapadu mandal,

Krishna District. ... Petitioner

AND

1. State of Ap, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra

Pradesh At Amaravathi

2. Merugumala Hanuman Raju, S/o Merugumala Ananda Rao Aged

about 49 yrs R/o Jagannadhapuram village Veerulapadu mandal,

Krishna 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:6966

8

* THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION No.242 of 2020

% 12.01.2024

Between:

Pidiyala Bujji Babu, S/o. Mohan Babu,

Aged about 32yrs, R/o. Jujjuru village,

Veerulapadu mandal,

Krishna District. ... Petitioner

AND

1. State of Ap, Rep. by Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra

Pradesh At Amaravathi

2. Merugumala Hanuman Raju, S/o Merugumala Ananda Rao Aged

about 49 yrs R/o Jagannadhapuram village Veerulapadu mandal,

Krishna District.

 ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P.Nagendra Reddy

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

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

AIR 2019 SC 847

This Court made the following:

2024:APHC:6966

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.242 of 2020

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 19731 has been filed by the petitioner/A2, seeking to quash

the proceedings in C.C.No.725 of 2019, on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, for the offence punishable under

Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code,18602.

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

a. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he is a resident of

Jagannadhapuram Village, and he was working as a Teacher. Accused

No.1, who is a Pastor used to visit his house for prayers. While so,

Accused No.1 introduced Petitioner/Accused No.2 to himm stating that

they have organized N.G.O Association at Jujjuru Village to help the

poor people. With deceptive words, keeping them under the belief that

they will receive foreign currency, they requested to provide loan

agreeing to repay the same within 1 ½ months. Having believed their

words, he provided total amount of Rs.51,00,000/-. The accused made

them to believe that they would run old age homes and orphanages with

foreign currency. Saying so, on 19.02.2018 they got registered Raju

Charitable Trust in the name of the de facto complainant and Prakash

1 for short ‘Cr.P.C’

2 for short ‘I.P.C.’

2024:APHC:6966

2

Charitable Trust in the name of L.W.5. But, both the accused did not

repay the amount to them and cheated them.

b. Based on the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a case

in Crime No.159 of 2019 was registered by Vatsavai Police, for the

offence under Section 420 IPC. After completion of investigation in the

said crime, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as

C.C.No.725 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

c. The said 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 P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

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

representing the State/Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of notice, none

appeared for Respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the

allegations made in the charge sheet would disclose that accused have

taken loan from the de facto Complainant and others with a promise to

repay the same along with interest, but failed to repay. It does not at no

stretch of imagination, attracts the offence under Section 420 of the

I.P.C. The case is purely of civil nature. Only to extort the accused,

2024:APHC:6966

3

police has given a shape of criminality to the civil case. There is no

dishonest intention or inducement on the part of the petitioner.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that prima

facie case is made out against the petitioner. Court has taken cognizance

for the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C against the petitioner. The

contents of the charge sheet reveals prima facie case against the

petitioner and a such, this Court cannot conduct mini trial, while

exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and prays for

dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing

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

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for

quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.725 of 2019

against the petitioner for the offence punishable under

Section 420 of the I.P.C?

7. 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court

2024:APHC:6966

4

in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others

3, has

categorically held as follows:

“5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case 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 has been taken by the Magistrate, it is

open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a

meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find

out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears

on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations

therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients

of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High

Court to interfere.

6. Defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when

established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for

quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only

question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out

the ingredients of a criminal offence or not.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. A bare perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that petitioner/

Accused No.2 along with Accused No.1 cheated the de facto complainant

and others, with deceptive words, by borrowing a huge amount of

Rs.51,00,000/- from them, and failed to repay the same, which, prima

facie attracts the offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. This

Court has to consider whether the complaint discloses prima facie offence

that was alleged against the petitioner/A.2 and the correctness or

3 AIR 2019 SC 847

2024:APHC:6966

5

otherwise of said allegations would be decided only during the trial. It is

not open to the Court to stifle proceedings by entering merits of the

contentions made on behalf of the petitioner/A.2. The allegations made

by Respondent No.2 are sufficient enough for the trial to be taken up and

hence, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.

Therefore, no fit circumstances are emerging from the record to exercise

jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition lacks merit.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

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

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________

 JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6966

6

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Crl.P.No.242 of 2020

Dated: 12.01.2024

Dinesh

2024:APHC:6966

7