IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that criminal proceedings should not be used to settle civil disputes and can be quashed if they do not establish a prima facie case of criminal offence.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

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 quashment of proceedings against him in Crime No.108 of 2019 on the file of Mantralayam Police Station, Kurnool District registered for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 468 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, [for short ‘IPC’].

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:

a. Respondent No.2/Complainant has been residing in Mantralayam with his wife Rukminamma. He purchased a plot of an extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents in Sy.No.29 of Yemmiganur on 19.06.1980 from one Mallaiah of Manchala Village and his heirs for an amount of Rs.2,500/- and the same has been registered.

b. Respondent No.2 kept the original registered document with Petitioner/Accused, who is his brother-in-law. The wife of Respondent No.2 died on 10.11.2003. Since then, though Respondent No.2 has been asking the Petitioner/Accused for return of the document, he has not returned the same.

c. Subsequently, Petitioner/Accused created a forged document for the said plot, in the name of his wife and thereby cheated him. Petitioner also abused and threatened him with dire consequences. As such, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint against the Petitioner.

Grounds Sought for Quashment:

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds.

a. Petitioner is innocent of the offence with which he is charged. The allegations mentioned in the complaint do not satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged and no offence is made against the Petitioner.

b. Respondent No.2 did not state in his complaint as to the purpose of keeping his original document with the Petitioner and as to why he did not take any steps for getting his document from the Petitioner

c. Since the petition filed for grant of interim injunction in O.S.No.74 of 2019, by the son of Respondent No.2, got dismissed, the present complaint has been filed with false and untenable allegations against the Petitioner

d. No prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the commission of alleged offence and hence, continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. D. Prasanna Lakshmi learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Though notice to Respondent No.2 was sent, the same was returned as refused and, none appeared on behalf of Respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the wife of the Petitioner purchased the subject property from Respondent No.2 and his wife, vide a registered sale deed dated 21.07.2010. Thereafter, the wife of Petitioner died in a road accident on 18.12.2014. During her life, she had been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After her death, Petitioner married another woman.

6. Learned counsel further submits that in a family partition, the subject property fell to the share of the two sons of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the sons of the Petitioner obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat, Mantralayam for construction of a residential building in the subject site and the construction is at final stage.

7. Learned counsel would further submit that one Badami Vijay Kumar, who is the son of Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur against the Petitioner and his two sons for declaration. Initially he got ad-interim injunction, but on merits, the said injunction petition was dismissed. In the said suit, the Petitioner herein also filed his written statement by mentioning th