IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THE THIRTYFIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9473 OF 2012 Between:
Kunchala Sudarshan … Petitioner/A-1 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of AP Hyderabad … Respondents/complainant & Anr.
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Venkatrao Patil Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9473 2012 O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No. 120 of 2012 of Mutharam Police Station, for alleged offences under section 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard Advocate for petitioners.
3. He submitted that petitioners herein filed a civil suit in OS.No. 76 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Parkal, against defacto complainant and as the suit is not withdrawn, he filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, Karimnagar district and the same was forwarded to Police for investigation. He submitted that allegations in the complaint do not attract any offence and if the petitioners failed to withdraw the suit, the remedy of defacto complainant is other wise but not to file a complaint, therefore, it is a clear abuse of process of court and the FIR is to be quashed.
4. None appeared for second respondent in spite of service of notice.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that five witnesses are examined as on 23/11/2012.
6. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
7. As seen from the complaint, the allegation against petitioners is that he entered into a compromise out of court at the intervention of A-2 and that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards full and final settlement in the presence of A-2 and other attestors and the petitioners having agreed to withdraw OS.No. 76 of 2005 has not withdrawn the said suit and thereby he dishonestly induced the complainant to make payment of Rs.30,000/- and cheated him, therefore, liable for punishment. In a 482 Cr.P.C. petition limited scope is to verify whether the complaint or FIR prima facie disclose any offence and if no such offence is disclosed then only complaint or FIR is liable to be quashed. Here on a verification of the complaint, there is a clear allegation that petitioner induced complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- and compromised to withdraw the suit and thereafter he has not fulfilled his obligation having received Rs.30,000/-. Along with complaint, the complainant filed receipt issued by accused in token of receiving Rs.30,000/-. These aspects have to be enquired and unless proper investigation is conducted, the correctness of these allegations cannot be decided. Further apart from offence under section 420 IPC it is also alleged that petitioners have committed offence under section, 504 and 506 IPC and these aspects have to be enquired and unless a proper investigation is conducted, the correctness of these allegations cannot be decided. When the complaint discloses prima facie offences, the question of quashing them under section 482 Cr.P.C. does not arise.
8. For the above reasons, this criminal petition is dismissed, as devoid of merits.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
31/07/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9473 OF 2012 Circulation No.64 Date: 31/07/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43