THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8883 of 2012 Date:04.09.2014 Between:
Beereddy Chandra Shekar Reddy and another.
. Petitioners.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8883 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash C.C.No.934/2012 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad for alleged offences under Sections 420 & 120-B read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that petitioners are children of first accused and as the petitioners filed a civil suit against their father seeking partition on the ground that he addicted to bad vices and bringing into existence some sham and collusive documents and to overcome that suit, the second respondent filed the above complaint without any basis. He submitted that this dispute is purely a civil dispute and even if the complaint allegations are left uncontraverted, they do not make out any case and therefore, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court.
4. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted that a private complaint is field against the petitioners and their father alleging that they all colluded and cheated the complainant, which is a society registered under the Societies Act. He submitted that there are allegations of collusion and fraud in the complaint which require trial and that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in toto, there is no material attracting the offences alleged against the petitioners. But as seen from the record, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and registered the complaint as C.C.No.934/2012. The petitioners have not produced the cognizance order to know on what basis cognizance was taken. When the trial Court, after satisfying that there is material against the petitioners to proceed with trial, took cognizance and the same cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., unless it is shown that the cognizance taken was without any material and that the trial Court without application of mind took the cognizance. As per the procedure for taking cognizance on the basis of a private complaint, the Magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses if any produced besides the documents, if any, would take cognizance. Here it is not known what was the material that was considered by the Court below for taking cognizance, because that order is not filed. The only material papers filed along with the quash petition are the copy of the complaint and the copy of the plaint. In the complaint, there is a specific allegation that the petitioners tried to dupe the complainant society for unjust enrichment and wrongful gain. It is also alleged in the compliant that petitioners from their representations from the inception made the complainant society to part with money and that they have cheated the complainant society and thereby, they are liable for punishment. Further, when cognizance is taken after satisfying that there is prima facie material, if the petitioners feel that there is no material to frame any charge against them, they have to apply for discharge before the trial Court invoking relevant provision, because the offences alleged are triable under warrant procedure. Admittedly, no such remedy is availed by the petitioners. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. K. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and others
[1]
, when alternative remedy is available, the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C are not applicable. In that decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-
“It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code. If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.”
6. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and accordingly, petition is dismissed as devoid of merits giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the legal remedies available under law including filing discharge petition.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand dismissed.
Date:04.09.2014 mrb
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
[1]
2011 (2) ALD (Crl.) 948 (SC)