Criminal proceedings should not be pursued when the dispute is purely civil and lacks essential elements of a cognizable offence, to prevent misuse of criminal law.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

1. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “the Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, “the BNSS ”), seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 in C.C. No.639 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, “the I.P.C.”).

2. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the dispute between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent is purely civil in nature, arising out of rival claims over the subject property, and that the same is already the subject matter of adjudication in O.S. No.187 of 2018 and O.S. No.150 of 2020, which are pending before the competent civil Court. It is submitted that the petitioners are bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.2018, pursuant to which lawful possession was delivered to them, and thereafter they constructed a residential house after obtaining necessary permissions and are presently residing therein.

3. It is further submitted that the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent is an afterthought and has been instituted with mala fide intention solely to harass the petitioners and to exert pressure in the pending civil litigation. Learned counsel submits that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients of any cognizable offence and are vague, bald and devoid of specific overt acts, thereby rendering the continuation of the criminal proceedings an abuse of process of law.

4. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice, as permitting the criminal prosecution to continue would cause irreparable hardship to the petitioners and result in a miscarriage of justice.

5. Per contra, Mr. A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, submits that the allegations made in the complaint, when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of „the I.P.C.,‟ and therefore the petition seeking quashment at this stage is not maintainable. It is submitted that the investigation conducted by the police culminated in the filing of a charge sheet only after collecting prima facie material against the petitioners, and that the truth or otherwise of the allegations can be adjudicated only in the course of trial. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioners, in collusion with Accused Nos.1 and 2, have dishonestly caused mutation of the property in the municipal records and thereby caused wrongful loss to the 2^nd respondent, which prima facie constitutes the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

6. It is further submitted that the mere existence of a parallel civil dispute does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of criminal offences, and that both civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously in accordance with law. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may dismiss the present Criminal Petition, as the case involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 of „the Cr.P.C.,‟ and the matter requires a full-fledged trial.

7. Sri G. Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for the 2^nd r