Criminal proceedings cannot be used as a tool to settle civil disputes or pressure parties in property disputes, particularly when the core issue involves the identity of the property and the party holds a title based on a judicial decree.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹For short ‘Cr.P.C’, has been filed by the Petitioner / Accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.630 of 2022 on the file of Vedayapalem Police Station, SPSR Nellore District for the offences under Sections 447, 427, 419, 420, 471, 474 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code²For short ‘IPC’

Heard Sri Lingala Hazarathaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Venkata Reddy Chittem, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Respondent No.1.

Learned counsel for Petitioner / Accused No.1 submits that the impugned FIR is a clear abuse of process of law, as the dispute is purely civil in nature and has been maliciously given a criminal colour after the defacto complainant repeatedly failed before the civil courts. Learned counsel would further submit that the Petitioner derived valid title over the subject property pursuant to an Agreement of Sale dated 25.04.2015 and a decree for specific performance in O.S. No.190 of 2015 dated 14.03.2016, followed by execution of a registered sale deed on 15.12.2017. The petitioner’s ownership is thus supported by a judicial decree and a registered document. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 and his mother, despite being fully aware of the Petitioner’s title, initiated civil proceedings in O.S. No.22 of 2018 seeking injunction. The interim injunction application filed in O.S.No.22 of 2018 was dismissed against which C.M.A was also preferred and the same was also dismissed. As such, Respondent No.2 withdrew O.S.No.22 of 2018. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 also filed O.S.No.74 of 2022, wherein, ad-interim injunction petition was filed and the same was also dismissed. No further challenge was made to the adverse orders. Having failed to obtain any relief from the civil courts, Respondent No.2 lodged the present complaint by suppressing material facts and pendency of civil litigation, only to harass the Petitioner and pressurize him to settle the civil disputes through criminal proceedings. Learned counsel would submit that, a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. The allegations, even if accepted at face value, relate to possession and title over immovable property and do not constitute any criminal offence. Learned counsel would finally submit that, the Petitioner is a senior practicing advocate at Nellore Bar, and the FIR has been filed with a mala fide intention to defame him and threaten him with illegal arrest. Therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed to quash the impugned proceedings.

Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the petition is not maintainable, as the FIR discloses cognizable offences and the investigation is at a nascent stage. At this stage, the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be examined in proceedings. Learned counsel would further submit that, mere pendency of civil litigation or existence of a civil remedy does not bar criminal prosecution when the allegations disclose ingredients of criminal offences. It is further submitted that the decree for specific performance and the registered sale deed relied upon by the Petitioner do not automatically extinguish the rights of Respondent No.2, and the validity, genuineness, and manner of acquisition of the said documents are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in quash proceedings. It is further submitted that suppression of facts or alleged failure in civil proceedings is a matter of defence and cannot be a ground to quash the FIR at the threshold. The learned counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor supported the version of learned coun