Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
Ella Lokanadham and Others – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of AP and Others – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 3167 Of 2019, Criminal Petition No. 3173 Of 2019
Decided On : 27-01-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of complaints - Criminal petitions filed to quash complaints for offences under Sections 447, 341, 506, and 427 of IPC - Allegations of trespass and demolition of property were found to be motivated by civil disputes - Court emphasized the need to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. (Paras 11, 12, 19)
(B) Inherent powers of High Court - The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 are to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of process or secure justice. (Paras 12, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused in two criminal complaints, challenged the validity of the charges alleging that the complaints were filed to exert pressure in ongoing civil disputes regarding property ownership. The complaints were filed after the petitioners had already initiated legal proceedings regarding the same property. (Paras 4, 8, 18)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaints were filed out of vengeance and to pressure the petitioners, thus quashing the charge sheets against them. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Para 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court, as the complaints were filed to settle civil disputes and exert undue pressure. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: Criminal petitions allowed; proceedings quashed.
ORDER :
(V. SUJATHA, J.)
These Criminal Petitions are filed by the same petitioners but with a different prayer which can be decided by way of a common order. Hence I feel it appropriate to decide both the cases by way of this common order.
2. Crl.P.No.3167 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the complaint in C.C.No.567 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Crl.P.No.3173 of 2019 is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the complaint in C.C.No.684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District.
4. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in both the criminal petitions, the 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant. On 14.12.2017, the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Atchutapuram Police Station stating that along with her husband, she purchased a land to an extent of Acs.3.94 cents in S.No.6/1A, 6/1B, 6/1E, 6/1F, 6/1L, 6/1K, 6/1I, 6/1J, 6/1G, 6/1M, 6/1N, 6/2 situated at Kondakarla village from Kandregula Ramanamma and others and another extent of Acs.3.94 cents from K. Prakash brothers, G. Ramanaji and others. The 2nd respondent has been in the possession of the said land and accordingly, the Tahsildar has issued pattadar pass books in favour of the 2nd respondent.
5. While so on 13.12.2017, when the 2nd respondent was cleaning her land for constructing a compound wall, the petitioners herein along with others visited the site and obstructed the works being performed and have threatened everyone with dire consequences. They have also demanded money for doing work in the subject property. The petitioners are alleged to have stated that they would not permit the 2nd respondent to do the work. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent has requested the police to initiate action against the petitioners, upon receipt of which the police have registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 506 read with 34 of IPC. After due investigation, the Police have also filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.684 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.3173 of 2019.
6. On 02.03.2018, the 2nd respondent has submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Atchutapuram Police Station stating that she is a resident of Kakinada and owns a land to an extent of Acs.4.00 cents in S.Nos.6/1a, 1/b, 1/e, 1/g, 1/f in Kondakarla Village in which the 2nd respondent has constructed a compound wall and is running Sri Sai Venkata Maruthi Sheep Farm.
7. While so, on the night of 13.02.2018, the petitioners herein, along with their men are alleged to have entered the land of the 2nd respondent by demolishing the compound wall and the said incident was brought to the notice by one Bhimisetty Ramu. When the 2nd respondent has visited the site, she identified that the compound wall to a length of 100 meters partly demolished, which is valued Rs.3,00,000/-. Stating thus, the 2nd respondent has requested the police to initiate action against the petitioners, upon receipt of which the police have registered a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC. After due investigation, the Police have also filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.567 of 2018 on the file of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam District. Challenging the said charge sheet, the petitioners have filed Crl.P.No.3167 of 2019.
8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the allegations levelled against the petitioners and has stated that the 2nd petitioner herein has purchased a land to an extent of Acs.2.40 cents which is a Zeroyiti dry land fro
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.
The court held that criminal proceedings cannot continue when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained if they are found to be an abuse of process, particularly when the complainant has previously lost in civil litigation.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, as it constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when the underlying dispute is purely civil, especially if a civil suit is pending.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
