IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that civil disputes should not be mischaracterized as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4, seeking quashment of proceedings against them in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 506 and 509 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4, and respondent No. 2 herein is the defacto-complainant. Respondent No. 2 along with other farmers used to borrow fertilizers from the shop of petitioner No. 4 and there were money transactions between respondent No. 2 and petitioner No. 4 with regard to fertilizers. In that connection, respondent No. 2-defacto complainant executed a promissory note in the name of the brother-in-law of petitioner No. 4 i.e. petitioner No. 1 in the presence of petitioners 2 and 3. While things stood thus, on 25.04.2016, respondent No. 2 received a legal notice from petitioner No. 1 alleging that respondent No. 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from him on 27.04.2015 by executing a promissory note. After several demands, as the 2nd respondent failed to repay the due amount, petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have been visiting the house of respondent No. 2 for the past three months and in his absence, abused the wife of respondent No. 2 in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. On that, respondent No. 2 lodged a report against the petitioners, which is the subject matter in Cr. No. 62 of 2016 of J. Panguluru Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 506 & 509 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against them in C.C. No. 113 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

3. Heard Sri Akurathi Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4, learned Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No. 1 and Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the entire material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 would submit that the petitioners are falsely implicated in this case and the allegations mentioned in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences as alleged in the charge sheet. He further submits that respondent No. 2 did not mention the date, on which, the petitioners allegedly abused and threatened his wife with dire consequences in his complaint. He also argued that as petitioner No. 1 filed a suit on 18.07.2016 against respondent No. 2/defacto-complainant herein for recovery of money, vide O.S. No. 89 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, upon which respondent No. 2 lodged a report before police on 03.08.2016 by creating a false story of abusing. He also argued that the matter between the parties is a dispute of purely civil nature and a civil dispute has been given a criminal cloak. As no offence punishable under various sections of the IPC is made out, he has prayed to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2. Therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of the process of law. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2020) 3 SCC 794 and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in Lokireddy Satyanarayana Reddy v. State of A.P. and Another, 2023 SCC Online (AP) 997.

5. Ref