SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16726

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. Sujatha, J
Uriti Seetharam – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF AP – Respondent
CRLP 12519/2018



Advocates:
MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP), P SRI RAM

Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained when a civil remedy exists, and significant delay in filing a complaint raises doubts about its validity.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 323, 406, 477A - Quashing of charge sheet - Petition filed to quash charge sheet in C.C.No.588 of 2017 for offences including cheating and breach of trust - Allegations of misappropriation of funds from property transactions - Court found that the dispute is civil in nature and the criminal complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has initiated parallel civil proceedings. (Paras 1, 6, 14, 26)

(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 ends of justice - If a civil remedy exists, criminal proceedings may be quashed to avoid conflicting judgments. (Paras 10, 12, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused of misappropriating funds from property transactions, was alleged to have pressured the complainant into executing a power of attorney, leading to unauthorized sales of property. The complainant filed a criminal complaint after a significant delay, while civil proceedings were ongoing. (Paras 2, 6, 14)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not disclose a criminal offence and that the civil suit was the appropriate remedy. The delay in filing the complaint was also a crucial factor. (Paras 20, 25, 28)

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed given the existence of civil proceedings and the delay in filing the complaint. (Para 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations did not establish the essential elements of cheating, and the existence of a civil remedy precluded the maintenance of criminal proceedings. (Paras 20, 26)

Result: The charge sheet in C.C.No.588 of 2017 is quashed, allowing the complainant to renew the request after the civil suit's resolution.

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.588 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323, 406 , 477A read with 156 (3) of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”).

2) Petitioner herein is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 herein filed private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Visakhapatnam alleging that he is the absolute owner of Ac.5-00 of land bearing Survey No.275/1A situated at Adivivaram village, Chinagadila Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Way back in the year 2003 the accused along with another person by name Namburi Venkata Surya Varaha Ramakrishna Rao approached the complainant while he was at Visakhapatnam and said that they are the residents of Visakhapatnam and they will look after the affairs of the property i.e., Ac.5-00 of land which belongs to the complainant and in pursuance of it they obtained "Angikara Oppanda patram” from the complainant, as per the said document the accused along with the another person secured the intending purchasers and also prepared lay out and other formalities for selling of the said property, except plot No.1, 2, 3 situated in the said Ac.5.00 of the land. The complainant employed the accused to secure the intending purchasers for selling the property of the complainant. As per the said document, if the accused get in contact with the purchasers and after the sale is materialized, they will receive advance of sale consideration and hand over the same to the complainant and after receiving the entire sale consideration only, the complainant has to execute registered sale deed in favour of the purchasers. Though as per the terms of the said document, the accused and another person has to secure the intending purchasers but failed to do so and the complainant himself secured most of the purchasers and entered into the transaction with the purchasers.

3) It is further alleged that the accused in a tactful manner pressurized the complainant to execute a G.P.A., relating to plot Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8. The accused himself got prepared the said G.P.A., and sent the same to the place of residence of the complainant i.e., America, where the complainant signed on the said document and sent the same to the accused. As per the said document the power of execution of the sale deeds was given to the accused. The accused is bound to account for the amount which was realized from the sale transactions. Believing the words of the accused, the complainant under the impression that the accused will act in a bona fide manner, the complainant executed the said G.P.A., in Virginia, U.S.A., authorizing the accused to perform certain acts regarding the Plot Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8 in S.No.275/1A, Adivivaram village, on 26.08.2006. Taking advantage of the power of attorney, the accused executed 10 documents after receiving the sale consideration from the purchasers who are mostly his kith and kin and registered the sale deeds in their favour. Further, the accused entered into nearly 14 transactions relating to various plot numbers. The documents were prepared by the accused and were sent to U.S.A., for the signatures of the complainant. Though the accused received the sale consideration from the purchasers, the same was not transferred to the account of the complainant. The accused used the said amount for his own acts, and committed the breach of trust which was reposed on the accused. The accused got prepared the agreement for plot Nos.9 and 18 and were sent to U.S.A., for the complainant's signature for consideration of Rs. 14,56,320/- in favour of Puvvula Kamala. It was mentioned in the said document that the some amount was paid through a cheque bearing No.533270 drawn on Andhra Bank, K.G.H. branch, Visa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top