Point of Law : Offence of Cheating - Inherit Powers of High Court - Extraordinary and inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., do not tilt in favour of the petitioners to pass an order as sought for.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The respondent Nos.2 and 3/de-facto complainants filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, making certain allegations against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. The learned Magistrate, having examined the complaint, referred the said complaint to the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for filing report, holding that the material available before the Court shows the requirement of thorough probe and investigation into the allegation, as levelled in the complaint. Learned Magistrate further held that during the course of enquiry, the police must bear in mind the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., in W.P.(Criminal) No.61/2008, dated 12.11.2013 and directed to call the matter on 16.02.2021 for report. On such referral, the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2021 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of the said First Information Report, this Criminal Petition is filed to quash the same.

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State, Sri Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for Sri H.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 would submit that the allegations in the subject private complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences. The dispute between the parties to litigation is purely civil in nature. The complaint lodged by the de-facto complainants before the learned Magistrate is false and frivolous. The de-facto complainants have already filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged contract before the competent civil Court. No criminal acts are attributable to the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, as alleged. Further, this Court, by order, dated 26.03.2021, was pleased to stay all further proceedings in the subject crime till 16.04.2021. This Court, vide order dated 16.04.2021, was pleased to extend the said interim order till 23.04.2021. Further, this Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.1 and 3/A-1 and A3 in the subject crime. The subject complaint was filed by the de-facto complainants after filing a comprehensive civil suit before a competent civil Court arising out of same transaction and same set of facts, that too after lapse of several months, only with a mala fide intention to extract more money from A-1 and the same is nothing, but abuse of process of law. In the said civil suit filed by the de-facto complainants, they could not get any interim order in their favour. The de-facto complainants, with an ill motive and by suppressing the material facts, are trying to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal Court in a case, wherein the dispute is purely civil in nature. Though the de-facto complainants alleged in the subject private complaint that they have earlier lodged a report with Panjagutta Police Station, neither a copy of the said complaint is enclosed with the subject private complaint nor the action taken by the police in that regard was mentioned in the subject private complaint. Thus, the very approach of the de-facto complaina