IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
G Satyanarayana - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 1553/2020
Decided On : 26-03-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashment of proceedings - Petitioner sought to quash proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC - Court found no prima facie case established against the Petitioner - Allegations were civil in nature and did not satisfy the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences - Criminal proceedings deemed an abuse of process of law. (Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Inherent powers of High Court - The court emphasized that its powers under Section 482 are to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, not to act as a court of appeal. (Paras 8 and 10)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was accused of creating fake documents regarding land ownership and misleading authorities, leading to criminal proceedings against him. The Petitioner claimed rightful ownership and argued that the allegations were civil in nature.
Findings of Court:
The court found no material to support the allegations of criminal offences and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner.
Issues: Whether the allegations constituted a criminal offence or were merely civil disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not meet the necessary legal standards for criminal charges and emphasized the need for proper legal procedures in civil disputes.
Result: Criminal petition allowed, proceedings quashed.
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 to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.48 of 2020 on the file of New Port Police Station, Visakhapatnam for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code,1860[for short ‘IPC’].
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
b. She further stated that the Petitioner/Accused misled the Revenue Authorities and obtained regularization proceedings under G.O.No.301 and requested to cancel the patta issued to the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner/Accused was called for his explanation by sending notice, he did not submit his explanation within the prescribed period.
c. As per the recommendation of the Village Revenue Officer, Respondent No.2 submitted a proposal to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam with a recommendation to cancel the regularization proceedings in Rc.No.823/2016/A, dated 12.10.2018 issued to the Petitioner/Accused and filed the present complaint to take necessary action against the Petitioner.
Grounds for quashment:
3. Aggrieved by the registration of the case against him, Petitioner/Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings against him on the following grounds:
b. Petitioner along with one B.Subba Rao have been granted Ryotwari pattas in 1985 in accordance with Section 4 of A.P.Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1956 and in tune with Rule 7, the Ryotwari patta was granted to each of them on 21.11.1985. Thereafter, the Municipal Authorities have granted permission for layout and for construction of residential buildings.
c. It is stated that the Special Deputy Tahsildar(Inams), Visakhapatnam issued proceedings dated 30.11.1978 after conducting suo-moto enquiry, wherein, a patta was granted to the tenant to an extent of Ac.8.99 cents. It is a patta land. Respondent No.1, on the instructions of R.D.O and collector had issued proceedings on 06.07.2013 stating that the subject property is a Government land.
d. The R.D.O and the Collector, after conducting enquiry, declared that the possession of various properties in Sy.No.82 particularly the share of 1572 square yards is a patta land. Respondent No.2 issued proceedings directing the Petitioner/Accused to appear for enquiry and for verification of documents on 16.07.2014. The land in Sy.No.82, which is situated in Gajuwaka Village is a Government land. Till the disposal of W.P.No.6689 of 2003, the land in Sy.No.82 of Gajuwaka Village will be treated as “No Man Land”.
e. Petitioner/Accused was being threatened to be dispossessed from his properties situated in Sy.No.82. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioner/Accused filed W.P.No.23959 of 2014 before this Court, wherein, directions have been given to maintain status-quo by both sides relating to survey of land in Sy.No.82.
f. It is further stated that Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 on 25.06.2019 to deputy staff for conducting the survey. The said letter discloses that Maturi Lakshmi had purchased 600 square yards of vacant site in Sy.No.82 from one Nalamati Dorayya in the year 1991.
g. On 31.05.2019 P.Ramarao and his workers entered into the site
Joseph Salvaraja Vs. State of Gujarat and others
Krishna Lal Chawla and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others
Prof.R.K.Vijayasaraty and another Vs. Sudha Seetharam and another
T.T.Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others
Vesa Holdings Private Limited and another Vs. State of Kerala and others
The court quashed criminal proceedings as the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence but were civil in nature, emphasizing the abuse of process of law.
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.
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.
The court affirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the basis that the allegations may also constitute a civil wrong, emphasizing the need for trial to determine the merits.
The court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice, especially when allegations do not con....
The court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused, determining that the allegations were civil in nature and lacked prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The court can quash criminal proceedings under inherent powers if the allegations stem from a civil dispute and fail to establish a prima facie case for the alleged criminal offences.
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.
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.