Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and allegations must disclose a cognizable offence for proceedings to continue.

ORDER :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.213 of 2019 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili.

2. Heard Sri K.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has nothing to do with the present case and is innocent. It is stated that no evidence is collected during the course of investigation by the investigating officer in this matter. Learned trial Judge took cognizance of offence under Section 420 IPC without judicial application of mind. Learned counsel would further submit that even as per the contents of the information which was presented to the police by respondent No.2, A1 only collected the amount on false promise for providing jobs in Samsung Company and Railways. It is the case of the complainant that they have deposited Rs.6 Lakhs in the account of A1. No incriminating material against the petitioner is available on record. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no identity of the petitioner by the complainant. Phone number which is referred in the complaint is not connected to the petitioner. It is the number which is available in public domain. Petitioner is running a cell shop. Learned counsel would further submit that except phone call alleged to have been received from A1, nothing is attributed against A2. The question of inducement, delivery of property does not arise against the petitioner. Learned counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner is mere abuse of process of law. To buttress his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in A.M.Mohan vs. State represented by SHO and another, [2024 SCC OnLine SC 339] in Crl.A.No. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.9598 of 2022) and Archana Rana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [(2021) 3 SCC 751]

4. Para No.13 of the A.M.Mohan (supra) reads as under:-

“13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:

(i) the deception of any person;

(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and

(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.”

5. Para 10 of Archana Rana (supra) reads as under:-

“10. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the charge- sheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. Whatever allegations are made for the offence with respect to inducement and/or even giving Rs.5,00,000/- for obtaining the job, are made against the appellant’s husband, co-accused. There are no allegations at all that the appellant herein induced the complainant to get the job and the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the appellant herein. Therefore, even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the face value are true, in our view, the basic essential ingredients of cheating are missing. Therefore, this was a fit case for the High Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein