The court emphasized the need for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice to exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 482, and highlighted the necessity to balance law enforcement power and protection of citizens from unjust criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

1. The instant petition under Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[in short 'Cr.P.C'] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2 seeking to quash F.I.R.No.397 of 2019 of Arundelpet P.S., which was registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[In short, 'I.P.C.']

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

a. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that Accused Nos., 1 and 2 advised him to purchase the house site plots in the firm of A1 viz., Sai Krishna Town Ships (India) Pvt. Limited in the name of his daughters. It is stated that he purchased the said plots for a total amount of Rs.5, 05, 000.00. When he called upon to register the plots, A1 kept on dragging the issue on one or other pretext, deceiving him fraudulently and inducing him to remit the amounts. It is his case that A2 also co-operated with her husband in cheating the de-facto complainant. Initially, de-facto complainant approached the police on 25/7/2018 and lodged a complaint, but they have not taken any action. Then approached the Superintendent of Police on 29/10/2018, but as all efforts failed, he filed a private complaint before the V Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Guntur.

b. Crime No.397 of 2019 on the file ofArundalpet P.S., Guntur District was registered, videSec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.2. She is the wife of Accused No.1. The case is under investigation. This F.I.R. is sought to be quashed by A-2/ Petitioner, vide this Petition. Hence, CRL.P.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

3. Heard Sri A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for Petitioner, Ms. Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri G. Kondal Rao, learned counsel for Respondent No.2/ de-facto complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that Petitioner is no way connected with the alleged transaction between the Accused No.1 and de-facto Complainant. It is submitted that Petitioner being the wife of A1 and Government employee working as Sub-Treasury Officer was falsely implicated in the case in order to bring A-1 to the terms of the de-facto complainant. Next, it is contended that no specific overt acts are attributed against the Petitioner to attract the offence under Sec. 420 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. Contending that the allegations are civil in nature, learned counsel argues that the de-facto complainant is supposed to work out his remedies before a Civil Court and his intention by lodging criminal proceedings is toput the Petitioner in pressure to fulfill his illegal demands. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court;

a. Mohammad Wajid and Anr. v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 (1) INSC 683. at para 34

b. Gulam Mustaffa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603. at para 36

c. Mohammad Ziad v. State of U.P.& others, [Crl.Appeal 2633 of 2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dtd. 29/8/2023.]at para 11

5. Refuting the arguments referred above, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there are no grounds to quash the case against Petitioner/A2. He would submit that the allegations made against the Petitioner in the complaint would squarely attract the offence under Sec. 420 of the I.P.C and therefore, the F.I.R. should not be quashed against A-2.

6. After hearing the submission of both sides, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor stated that as the case is under investigation, no conclusions can be drawn at this stage.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows;

Whether the case against the Petitioner/A-2in Crime No.397 of 2019 on the file of Arundalpet P.S., is liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

Determin