Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.
Lokireddy Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o. Appi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6934 of 2015
Decided on : 14-06-2023
Abuse of Process of Court - Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 of Cr.P.C - Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC - [Abuse of Process of Court] - [Criminal Proceedings] - [Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC] - The court discussed the abuse of process of court in criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and quashed the proceedings against the accused based on the absence of prima facie evidence and the pendency of civil suits between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC, alleging that the accused executed sale deeds without having any right, title, or interest in the property. The accused filed a criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated with an ulterior motive to settle civil disputes and that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. The court also noted the pendency of civil suits between the parties and the absence of prima facie evidence against the accused.
Issues: The issues involved the abuse of process of court in criminal proceedings, the pendency of civil suits, and the absence of prima facie evidence against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles laid down in various judgments to conclude that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending civil suits and absence of prima facie evidence against the accused.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in C.C.No.51 of 2013 pending on the file of IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.
2. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein was referred to Patamata Police, Vijayawada, by the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, Vijayawada, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.65 of 2009 was registered by Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC against the accused. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against all the accused regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offences, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet and the learned IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took the case on file and numbered as C.C.No.51 of 2013 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 120-B IPC.
3. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She stated that her husband V.Venkateswara Rao got the property an extent of Ac.1.01 cents of land from his ancestors and an extent of Ac.0.09 cents from his paternal aunt in R.S.Nos.476/5 and 476/4 respectively through a Will. Thereafter her husband offered to sell the property to an extent of Ac.1.01 cents to B.Janardhan Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.1,31,000/- and executed an agreement of sale dated 16.01.1981 and part of sale consideration of Rs.62,310/- was paid on different dates and later failed to perform his part of the contract and the matter was placed before the elders and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 22.07.1986 between them and said Janardhan Reddy agreed to purchase Ac.0.51 cents on or before 31.01.1987 and the husband of the 2nd respondent executed another agreement of sale in favour of G.Koteswari and three others on 22.07.1986 to an extent of 321.44 square yards. Thereafter, the husband of the 2nd respondent executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner/1st accused on 04.05.1987 under registered Doc.No.707 of 1987. Subsequently, disputes arose between them and the husband of the 2nd respondent cancelled the said GPA on 11.07.1988.
4. While the matter stood thus, the husband of the 2nd respondent died intestate on 09.08.1989. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.10.1990 for an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land in R.S.No.476/5 of Gunadala Village. At that time, the petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 incorporated certain false recitals in the agreement of sale. The 2nd respondent executed a power of attorney dated 11.10.1990 in favour of the petitioner/1st accused authorizing him to execute sale deeds on her behalf. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent cancelled the GPA on 12.07.1991 which was given to the petitioner/1st accused and the same was registered vide Doc.No.1143/4 of 1991 and made a publication in Andhra Jyothi daily newspaper about the cancellation of GPA.
5. The Petitioner/A.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.509 of 1992 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 11.10.1990 and the said suit was decreed on 06.02.2001. The petitioner/3rd accused is the daughter of the petitioners/Accused 1 & 2 and having knowledge about the cancellation of GPA, on 23.10.2000 the petitioner/2nd accused executed a document in favour of the petitioner/3rd accused in order to create title over the property belongs to the 2ndrespondent. Petitioners/A.1 and A.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of Dr.G.Surendra Babu for an extent of 242.2 sq.yards of house site situated in R.S.Nos.476/5 and 476/6, knowing fully well that the GPA given by the 2nd respondent was cancelled and is not in existence. A.1 to A.6, in order to grab t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when disputes between the parties constitute only civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the Courts would not permit a person to be harassed. T....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a dispute is essentially of a civil nature, criminal proceedings should not be allowed to proceed, and the power to quash criminal procee....
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the court or if quashing the proceedings would serve ....
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The Court can quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C if the allegations do not constitute any offence, but the power should be used sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure end....
The court ruled that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes and can be quashed if they do not establish a prima facie case of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed in civil disputes, aimed at preventing misuse of legal processes. Courts must ensure that only matters with substantial criminal allegations are pursued judiciousl....
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if the allegations are purely civil in nature and do not disclose a criminal offence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
