IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that FIRs must disclose a prima facie case for criminal offences, and civil disputes should not be pursued as criminal charges.

ORDER :

K. Manmadha Rao, J.

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in registering and proceeding with investigation in FIR No.131/2015 for the offence under Section 447, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 of Renigunta (U) Police Station, Chittoor District, though the complaint itself discloses that there are financial disputes between the petitioners and 4th respondent and the contents of the complaint also does not satisfy the ingredients of the above said offence and thereby proceeding with the investigation, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent herein came to the petitioners and requested to advance a hand loan for their family necessities saying that the same would be repaid within a period of 2 months. Believing the same the petitioners gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and at the time borrowing the said amount she executed a promissory note. Thereupon the wife of the 4th respondent herein issued a cheque bearing No.992128 dated 13.3.2015 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, Tirupati Branch. When the said cheque was presented before SBI, Settipalli branch on the same day, the same was dishonoured and returned with an endorsement “Funds insufficient”. The same was informed to the 4th respondent and his wife on several occasions but they failed to comply with the same. Accordingly, the petitioner got issued a legal notice under Section 142 of NI Act. They have also issued a reply notice with false and incorrect statements alleging that on 29.3.2015 the petitioner himself and his wife trespassed into their house and abused them in caste name. In view of the same, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C under Section 138 r/w 142 of NI Act before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati and the same is pending. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondents filed a private complaint before the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati and got referred to the police, wherein it was alleged that on 26.3.2015 the petitioner himself and his wife trespassed into their house and abused them in caste name. The respondent authorities without looking into the same and without verifying the factual situation have registered the complaint is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition.

3. This Court vide order dated 01.09.2015 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioner only in relation to Crime No.131/2015 on the file of the Station House Officer, Renigunta (U) Police Station, Renigunta, Chittoor District, however the investigation may go on.

4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, contended that, as per the evidence of LWs.1 to 6, the prima facie case was established against the petitioners herein. the case was charged sheeted on 16.09.2015 and the same was returned with certain objections, this respondent has taken steps to resubmit the same before the V Additional JFCM, Tirupati. It is further contended that almost all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are the subject matter of investigation in the above FIR for which a detailed investigation was conducted, completed and charge sheet was filed on 16.09.2015. Therefore the petitioners have not made out prima facie case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

5. Heard Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri J. UgraNarasimha, learned counsel for the un-official respondent and Sri T M K Chaitanya, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents.

6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents made in the petition, has placed reliance on a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in

(i) Joseph Salvaraja versus State of Gujar