THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4273 of 2012
Date:09.07.2014
Between:
Anju Gada . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and others.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4273 of 2012
ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings in C.C.No.875/2011 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad for alleged offences under Section 420 read with Section 120 (B) IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner mainly contended that continuation of prosecution against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law, on the background of facts as petitioner never offered to sell her subject mulgies to the complainant i.e., second respondent herein and that she never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the second respondent particularly the alleged agreement of sale dated 18-08-2009. He further contended that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of the disputed property and since the date of purchase, she has been enjoying the property by leasing out to the tenants.
He contended that when a legal notice was received by petitioner, she immediately issued a reply narrating the true facts and denying any agreement of sale. It is further contended that the lis between the parties is purely a civil dispute and only to harass and blackmail, the present complaint is pressed into service. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of second respondent that the police, after due investigation filed charge sheet observing that there is prima facie material for the offence alleged and the correctness of statements of witnesses cannot be decided at this stage.
4. Petitioner herein is first accused in the above referred C.C.No.875/2011 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the said Court and the same was referred to police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., and police after due investigation filed charge sheet stating that petitioner and two others are liable for punishment for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC and the Court took cognizance of the same and registered it as C.C.No.875/2011. Challenging the same, present quash petition is filed.
5. Advocate for petitioner relied on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ANIL MAHAJAN vs. BHOR INDUSTRIES
[1]
LTD & ANOTHER for the proposition fraudulent and dishonest intention must be shown to be existing from the very beginning of the transaction. In that case, a private complaint was filed and on the basis of such complaint, cognizance was taken, but in that case, except use of words ‘cheating’ in the complaint, there was no other material attracting the ingredients of Section 420 IPC and offence of cheating was not made out. In those circumstances, it was held that dishonest intention must be there from the beginning of the transaction.
6. He has also relied on an unreported decision of Karnataka High Court in Susheelamma vs. State of Karnataka (dated 08-01-2014), for the same proposition.
He also relied on an unreported decision of Madras High Court in Malini vs. Mrs. Gunavathy (dated 13-06-2011) for the same proposition.
7. I n ALPIC FINANCE LTD vs. P. SADASIVAN AND ANOHER
[2]
, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed merely because a remedy is available for the civil suit, it is not an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided, such complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence alleged. Here, police after examining three witnesses in support of the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint from that there is prima facie evidence. Here the petitioner contended that she never executed any agreement as referred in the complaint and as seen from the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., two of them stated about execution of that agreement. It is settled law in a quash petition, it is not expected to weigh evidence or the material gathered during investigation. Correctness or otherwise of the statements made by the witnesses to police during course of investigation cannot be decided as false or true at this stage. When there are uncontroverted allegations made by the witnesses against the petitioner, when they were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which disclosed prima facie ingredients of Section 420 IPC, the contention of the petitioner that there is no material attracting the ingredients of offence of cheating cannot be accepted.
As rightly pointed out by Advocate for second respondent, the truth or otherwise of the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint, which are prima facie supported by witnesses examined during investigation can be decided only during trial.
8. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits and as a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Date:09.07.2014 mrb
[1] (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 746
[2] (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 513