IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
Kodali Satya Devi - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 4263 of 2018
Decided On : 30-07-2024
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C. Section 482, 190, 200 - The court emphasized the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings that are civil in nature, preventing abuse of the judicial process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of issuing a dishonored cheque, contended that the underlying dispute was civil, stemming from a property sale agreement with the complainant, who later filed a criminal complaint after the cheque bounced.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations in the complaint were rooted in a civil transaction and that the criminal proceedings were initiated to exert pressure on the petitioner, thus constituting an abuse of process.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. due to the nature of the dispute being civil.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that criminal proceedings cannot be pursued when the underlying dispute is civil, especially when a civil suit is already pending, to prevent misuse of the judicial process.
Result: The criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.18 of 2017.
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.18 of 2017 on the file of II Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District registered for the offences punishable under Section 190 and 200 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”).
2. Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the accused stating that one Nalluri Ravi introduced the accused, her husband Narasimha Rao and one Chalicham Anil Kumar to the complainant stating that they want to purchase the house of complainant. Accordingly, the accused and other persons with mediation of the said Nalluri Ravi prepared to purchase the house of complainant. As there was short of Rs.18,00,000/- out of total consideration, on 28.02.2015 the accused and three other persons requested the complainant to accept the promissory note and a post dated cheque from them for the said amount and complete the execution of registered sale deed. Further, they promised that they will adjust the amount by 10.03.2015 by way of depositing the amount in the account of accused and then the complainant can present the said cheque. The accused also executed a promissory note dated 28.02.2015 in favour of the complainant for Rs.18,00,000/- and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum. The accused and her husband also issued a post dated cheque bearing No.009399 dated 10.03.2015 for Rs.18,00,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank, Kurnool Road, Ongole. Subsequently, on receipt of pronote and post dated cheque, the complainant executed a registered sale deed on 28.02.2015 in favour of daughter of accused. When the complainant presented the above cheque on 05.06.2015 for collection, it was returned unpaid on 06.06.2015 with an endorsement of "Funds Insufficient". The said cheque and return memo were given to the complainant by his banker on 09.06.2015. Upon which, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 02.07.2015 to the accused demanding to pay the amount within 15 days. But, she had neither paid the cheque amount nor replied. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 420, 506 IPC against the accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the petitioner/accused has entered into an agreement of sale with the 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant for purchase of his house for an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on behalf of her daughter on 17.11.2014. As on that date, the petitioner advanced Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of 2nd respondent. But, however, the 2nd respondent demanded Rs.25,00,000/- as advance amount. Since the petitioner was having net amount of Rs.10,00,000/- only, she issued blank cheque as well as pronote for the balance amount and entered into an agreement with 2nd respondent on 17.11.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner have paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.12.2014 and asked the 2nd respondent to handover the pronote as well as cheque which was issued by the petitioner, but the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the blank cheque as well as the pronote were kept in bank and they are not readily available and will handover the same later. Believing the said words, the petitioner never insisted the 2nd respondent for the same. The 2nd respondent received Rs.25,00,000/- as an earnest money and Rs.90.00 lakhs was also paid on 30.12.2014. The balance amount will be paid at the time of registration. On 25.01.2015, Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid and on 08.01.2015 Rs.8,50,000/- was transferred. After payment of entire amount, the 2nd respondent registered the house in the name of the petitioner on 28.02.2015. Thereafter, once again when the petitioner asked the 2nd respondent to handover the documents such as pronote and post dated cheques, the 2nd respondent replied that after calculating total amount he will return the blank cheque and promissory note. The c
Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and another
Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, especially if a civil suit is pending.
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 established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of criminal intent to sustain charges of cheating.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process when complaints are motivated by civil disputes.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if they are found to be an abuse of process, particularly when the complainant has previously lost in civil litigation.
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
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 court established that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.