THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6559 of 2012 Date:09.07.2014 Between:
Thummala Vijayakumari . Petitioner.
AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its’ Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.6559 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.24/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet for alleged offences under Sections 166, 167, 418 & 468 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Petitioner is A6 in the above referred C.C. Advocate for petitioner submitted that there are land disputes between the complainant and family of Desaboyina and this present petitioner-A6 is nothing to do with those disputes.
He submitted that petitioner married long back and staying with her husband. He submitted in the entire complaint except stating that pattadar passbooks and title deeds were granted by A1 to this petitioner along with the four family members of Desaboyina, there is no other allegation.
He submitted that there must be specific allegations showing the role or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy or common intention. He submitted that the offences under Sections 166 & 167 IPC, are no way related to petitioner and even for the other offences under Sections 418 & 468 IPC, there is absolutely no material of any kind leave alone allegations against the petitioner. He submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandran Ratnaswami vs.
[1]
K.C. Palanisamy and others held as follows:-
“The High court while dismissing the earlier two writ petitions filed by respondent 1 complainant and while dismissing the latest writ filed by the appellant to quash FIR No.7 of 2007 observed that the modus operandi of Respondent 1 complainant was to defraud the person or entity and thereafter approach the courts with multiple proceedings in order to distract attention from his own misdeeds. Neither the High Court nor the Magisterial Court have ever applied their mind and considered the conduct of the respondent and continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of the disputes, which are civil in nature and finally adjudicated by the competent authority i.e., the Company Law Board and the High Court in appeal. The complainant has manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to deprive the appellants C and P from their basic right to move freely anywhere inside or outside the country. Moreover, it would be unfair if the appellants are to be tried in such criminal proceedings arising out of the alleged breach of a joint venture agreement specially when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, allowing the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.7 of 2007 to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court and, therefore, for the ends of justice such proceedings ought to be quashed. Since the High Court failed to look into this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order, the same could not be sustained in law. Therefore, the appeals arising out of SLP (c) No.13120 of 2013, SLPs (Crl.) Nos.3273-74 of 2013 filed by C and SLPs (Crl.) Nos.1947-48 of 2013 filed by P, are allowed.”
4. Referring to that decision, he submitted that a case of abuse of process of Court cannot be allowed to continue and this case is a clear abuse of process of law so far as petitioner is concerned. He submitted that there is no material even to show that the petitioner got that pattadar passbooks or title document by influencing A1 or colluding with other family members. On the other hand, Advocate for second respondent submitted that in the complaint, it is stated that petitioner is one of the beneficiary who got pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of lands in Survey Nos.457 & 458 to an extent of Acs.04-19 cents and that itself is sufficient to show her involvement. He submitted that after considering the sworn statement of complainant and a witness Court took cognizance and the objection raised on behalf of petitioner is a matter of evidence, which has to be considered during trial.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioner, except a bald statement to the effect that petitioner got old pattadar passbooks and title deeds along with the members of Desaboyina family to an extent of Ac.04-19 cents in Survey Nos.457 & 458, there is no other allegation of any kind attributing conspiracy or common intention with the family members of Desaboyina. In the decision relied on by the Advocate for petitioner, Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed that a Court proceeding should not be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. It is held in that decision, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. Here even if the entire complaint allegations are accepted as true, no offence is made out against the petitioner and if such complaint is allowed to continue till trial, in my view it would amount to abuse of process of Court, therefore, relying on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that this is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is A6.
6. For these reasons, Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.24/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet are hereby quashed.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall stand disposed of.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:09.07.2014 mrb
[1] (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 740