IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence and were purely civil in nature.

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 the proceedings against him in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District, registered for the offence under Sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code, [for short 'IPC'].

2. The contents of the complaint, in brief, are as follows:

a. The son of the complainant i.e., Vemuru Uday Kiran purchased land admeasuring 0.12 cents in Sy.No.131-26A in Poosapati Village from Buttala Krishnamma and Buttala Apparao, vide registered D.No.2255/2016. Petitioner/Accused submitted false documents and got the said land registered in his name. When the complainant and his son requested to cancel the said document, Petitioner/Accused did not heed to their request. Then, a complaint was lodged with Superintendent of Police in Spandana vide complaint No.1401/18.12.2019.

b. Complainant presented the present report which was registered as a case in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram.

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against him, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition on the following grounds :

a. There are civil disputes between the Petitioner and the son of Respondent No.2, who allegedly was claiming rights over the land purchased by the Petitioner.

b. As the son of Respondent No.2 was claiming title, Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.717 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram against the son of Respondent No.2 and Smt. Buttala Krishnamma seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. On 11.11.2019, an interim order was passed in the said suit directing the Respondents therein not to interfere with the petition schedule property and not to demolish the compound wall.

c. As the son of Respondent No.2 suffered an interim order, Respondent No.2 lodged a false complaint against the Petitioner so as to harass him and deprive him of his legitimate rights over the property belonging to him.

d. The allegations made against the Petitioner do not disclose any offence against him. As such, continuation of criminal proceedings in the above crime against the Petitioner, is an abuse of process of law.

Arguments Advanced at the Bar

4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1. Despite providing sufficient opportunity, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 did not turn up to submit arguments.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Accused would submit that there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner to attract the alleged offences and that there are civil disputes pending between the parties. it is urged that a civil dispute is given the colour of a criminal offence. It is stated that the present case has been registered against the Petitioner based on the bald and omnibus allegations and no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner for the alleged offence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603.

6. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are specific allegations against the Petitioner. There are no tenable grounds to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner at this stage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

Point for Determination

7. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel, now the point that would emerge for determination is :

Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioner in Crime No.237 of 2019 on the file of Pusapatirega Police Station, Vizianagaram District?

Determination by the Court

8. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers