Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(AP) 379

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.Sujatha, J.
Haneef Moinuddin Shaik and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Criminal Petition No: 2422/2021
Decided On : 06-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: C Prakash Reddy
For the Respondent: O Udaya Kumar, Public Prosecutor

The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 read with 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners accused of cheating in a land sale agreement - Allegations deemed civil in nature due to pending civil suit - Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process of court. (Paras 1, 3, 18)

(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 are to be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused of cheating the de-facto complainant in a land sale agreement, failed to register the land after receiving an advance payment. The complainant alleged fraud, but the petitioners argued the dispute was civil, as a suit for specific performance was already filed.

Findings of Court:
The court found the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence and were an abuse of process, as the matter was civil in nature.

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. due to the civil nature of the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings in a matter that is essentially civil constitutes an abuse of process, and thus, the proceedings were quashed.

Result: Criminal Petition allowed.

ORDER :

V.Sujatha, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in Crime.No.335 of 2020 of Mutyalareddypalli Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban District for the offence registered under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short (“I.P.C”).

2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 & 2 and the 2^nd respondent herein is the de-facto complainant. The 2^nd respondent herein lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners/A1 & A2 along with A3 induced her and her friend by name one M. Sujatha to purchase the land situated in an extent of 104.16 ankanams at plot No.130 in Sy.No.557 of Peruru Village, Tirupathi Rural and received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her and her friend and the petitioners/A1 & A2 executed agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020 by promising them that they will execute register sale deed for the said land and the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was agreed to be paid on or before 10.09.2020. But, the petitioners/A1 & A2 did not register the subject land in favour of the de-facto complainant and her friend, and registered the same to others. It is further alleged that petitioners/A1 & A2 neither return the amount nor registered the land to the de-facto complainant and her friend and cheated them by registering the plot in the name of others before the due date of execution of sale. Hence, the present FIR was filed.

3. The present petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 & 2 on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd, vague and the petitioner/accused Nos. 1 & 2 have been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that an agreement of sale dated 25.07.2020 was entered into between the petitioners/A1 & A2 and the 2^nd respondent and her friend, one M. Sujatha, to purchase the plot to an extent of 104.16 ankanams in Gazetted Officers, Co-operative Building Society in Sy.No.557 of Peruru Grama Panchayat for consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- and paid 5,00,000/- as advance on the very same day and agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration within one and half month i.e., on or before 10.09.2020. It is further submitted that, the de-facto complainant and her friend failed to pay the balance of consideration within the stipulated time frame under the agreement. According to the agreement if the balance amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the same will be forfeited. It is further submitted that the complaint does not disclose that the petitioners had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of entering into the agreement, and in the absence of any such culpable intention, the filing of a complaint under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC is not maintainable. Additionally, the 2^nd respondent herein and her friend already filed a suit vide O.S.No.2 of 2021 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale. The present case is filed only with the sole intention of settling a civil dispute. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

4. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused Nos.1 & 2, Sri O. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/de- facto complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the alleged acts of the petitioner is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:

“Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in crime No.335 of 2020 at Mutyalareddypalli Town Police Station, Tirupati Urban District, Vizianagaram, is liable to be quashed by exer