IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if the allegations are purely civil in nature and do not disclose a criminal offence.

ORDER :

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short “Cr.P.C”] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[for short “I.P.C.”]

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows

a. Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are brothers, who have started jewellery business in the name and style of “Zeenath Jewellery Shop” on 01.07.1980 and have entered into a deed of partnership dated 01.08.1985. Subsequently, in the course of time, another jewellery shop was also set up in the name “Zeenath Gold Palace” which is under the management of Respondent No.2. Thereafter, the second shop got closed due to the losses sustained in the business.

b. It is stated that the efforts made by Respondent No.2 to get his legitimate half share in the properties purchased from the nucleus of joint business funds, did not fructify and as such, Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa for partition and separate possession of half share in the properties purchased by the Accused.

c. On receipt of summons in the said suit, the Accused created a bogus deed of dissolution dated 01.10.1987, by forging signature of Respondent No.2 by giving a colour that the partnership in Zeenath Jewellery between him and Respondent No.2 was dissolved way back on 01.10.1987 by claiming that the said deed was submitted to the A.C.T.O., Kadapa vide letter dated 01.11.2001. Consequently, due to the pressure of Accused, Respondent No.2 compromised O.S.No.23 of 2001 and a decree to that effect had also been passed on 28.03.2006.

d. Thereafter, the Accused filed O.S.No.82 of 2012 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa seeking declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds executed by the Respondent No.2 and for consequential permanent injunction. In fact, those properties were gifted to Respondent No.2 by the Accused orally, but the Accused for the reasons best known to him, took a somersault and again claiming right over those properties.

e. As such, the Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the Petitioner/Accused for the alleged offences on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and the learned Magistrate vide Order passed in C.F.R.No.4315 of 2017 dated 16.07.2019, had taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.

Grounds sought for Quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/ Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings in the above crime on the following grounds:

a. Respondent No.2 had chosen to commence these criminal proceedings after his failure in the civil litigation based on the same cause of action. It is purely a civil dispute and initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law.

b. Even the allegation of forgery, threat and coercion as pleaded in the suit filed by Respondent No.2 could not be established and once again on the same allegations, initiating the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law.

c. The ingredients of the offences for which cognizance is taken, are not fulfilled.

d. Perusal of the complaint discloses that the same is filed by Respondent No.2 for achieving his share in the property which is already subject matter in the suits.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition,