Point of Law: A frustrated landlord after having met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law. The facts when stated are so, telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous.

Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 156(3), 200 and 482 - SC & ST (POA) Act - Section 3 (1) (x) - Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 420, 405 and 406 - Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 17 – Loan - Criminal breach of trust - Cheating and dishonesty - Seeking quash of investigation - Complaint filed Managing Partner, whereas A2 to A5 are partners of M/s. situated Village - It is said that, all accused lured the Complainant stating that they are going to construct apartments in said land under name and style Towers as per T.U.D.A. norms - Accused offered Flat Complainant, which is admeasuring 1438 square feet square feet, apart from providing free car parking - Accused also promised that they are going to provide all amenities, doors, windows and cupboards, electrification etc., and also two lifts to said Towers - Believing the same, Complainant accepted proposal and purchased said Flat through registered Sale Deed, paying a was in unfinished stage - Remaining amount was to be paid in instalment depending upon completion of work total consideration for said Flat was around - Complainant also obtained loan from L.I.C. and after receiving loan amount, paid the same to A1. Apart.
Finding of the Court:
Allegations made in first information report or 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 accused - Where uncontroverted allegations made in FIR or complaint and evidence collected in support of same do not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against accused - Where allegations made in 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 accused - Court see some force in submission but it is equally true that chargrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give' vent to their frustration by cheaply invoking jurisdiction of the criminal court - Complainant herein is an Advocate. He lost in both courts in the rest control proceedings and has now rushed to the criminal court itself speaks volumes - Add to this the fact that another suit between the parties was pending - Conclusion is inescapable that invoking the jurisdiction of criminal court in this background is an abuse of the process of law and the High Court rather glossed over this important fact while declining to exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Result: Criminal Petition is allowed

ORDER :

1. The present application is filed by the Petitioners/Accused No.A3 [died], A2, A4 and A5 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [“Cr.P.C.”] seeking quashing of investigation in Crime No. 84 of 2013 of Tiruchanoor Police Station, Tirupathi Town, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 403, 406 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, [“I.P.C.”] and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, [“SC & ST (POA) Act”].

2. Originally, a private complaint was filed, which was referred to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The averments, in the complaint filed, are as under :

i. A1 is the Managing Partner, whereas A2 to A5 are partners of M/s. M.S.R. Associates. A4 and A5 are land owners of the Towers, which are situated in Survey Nos. 250/7 and 250/8 of Tiruchanoor Village, admeasuring a total extent of 2614.66 square yards. It is said that, all the accused lured the Complainant stating that they are going to construct apartments in the said land under the name and style of Swarnamukhi Towers as per T.U.D.A. norms. The accused offered Flat No. 510 to the Complainant, which is admeasuring 1438 square feet @ Rs.1,500/- per square feet, apart from providing free car parking etc. The accused also promised that they are going to provide all amenities, doors, windows and cupboards, electrification etc., and also two lifts to the said Towers. Believing the same, the Complainant accepted the proposal and purchased the said Flat through registered Sale Deed, dated 28.03.2008, by paying a sum of Rs.5,64,000/-, which was in unfinished stage. The remaining amount was to be paid in instalment depending upon the completion of the work. The total consideration for the said Flat was around Rs.21,57,000/-. The Complainant also obtained loan from L.I.C. and after receiving the loan amount, paid the same to A1. Apart from that, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by way of cash towards sale consideration and another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards electricity charges, etc.

ii. It is said that, the accused intentionally laid flooring by using low cost marble and in collusion with each other are postponing delivery of possession of the said Flat to the Complainant. It is said that, A1 is dominating the other partners and creating hurdles to the Complainant. It is said that, though the Complainant requested the accused to perform their part of the contract and provide agreed amenities, but for reasons best known, the accused failed to fulfil their part of contract. It is said that, accused have gone to an extent of harassing the Complainant and scolded him in public by referring his caste. It is said that, the accused are openly proclaiming that the Complainant hails from scheduled caste and, as such, they are not going to complete the Flat and deliver possession to the Complainant.

iii. The averments in the complaint also show that, A1 being the Managing Partner and General Power of Attorney agent of A3 to A5 has executed Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant, but, though, three years have elapsed, the accused are postponing completion of the Flat. Basing on these allegations, a private complaint came to be filed, which was forwarded to Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

3. Sri. S. Nageswar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, mainly submits that, even accepting the allegations in the report came to be true, no offence as alleged is made out. In other words, according to him, the grievance of the informant can be addressed elsewhere but definitely not in this criminal proceedings.

4. The same is strongly opposed by Sri. Tuhin Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2. According to him, a reading of the report makes out a prima facie case and since the case is still at the stage of investigation, quashing of proceedings would be premature. In other words, his argument appears to be that, truth would come out only when the Po