Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B.P.Fakruddin vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 January, 2025
APHC010519002022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396]
THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7798/2022
Between:
1. B.P.FAKRUDDIN, S/O. LATE HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 61
YEARS
2. SUHAN SADIQ,, S/O. B.P. FAKRUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
BOTH ARE MUSLIMS AND RESIDENTS OF H.NO. 76-119-D5-30,
MAHAVEER NAGAR COLONY, KURNOOL CITY
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
2. S KHALEEL AHMED, S/O. S.C. MASTHAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, MUSLIM, R/ O. PLOT NO. 48, RTC COLONY, BEHIND IDLI
HOTEL, GOOTY ROAD, KURNOOL CITY.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. VARUN BYREDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
2. SRINIVASA RAO MODUKURI
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
19731 has been filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking
quashment of the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2318 of 2021 on the file
1 for short ‘Cr.P.C‘
2
of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for the
offences punishable under Sections 198, 200, 406, 420, 464, 477 and 506
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602.
2. Heard Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners,
Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent
No.1/State and Sri Modukuri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for Respondent
No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the subject land is
not an assigned land as alleged by Respondent No.2. Learned counsel would
further submit that the said land was put under the prohibited list of properties
in the year 2019 i.e., 15 years after the sale transaction between the
Petitioners and Respondent No.2. The allegations leveled against the
Petitioners are false and omnibus. Learned counsel would further submit that
no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioners in the commission of
the alleged offences. Learned counsel would further submit that Respondent
No.2 has converted a pure civil dispute into a criminal offence. Therefore,
continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners is an abuse of
process of law. Hence, prayed for quashment of the proceedings against the
Petitioners. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammad Ibrahim and
others v. State of Bihar and another3.
2 for short ‘I.P.C.’
3
2009 (8) SCC 751
3
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, in unison, would submit that, the subject land is an assigned land
and Respondent No.2 purchased the same from the Petitioners in the year
2004. There are specific allegations against the Petitioners, which would
attract the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that, there are no
tenable grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage. Hence, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
Point for Determination
5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both
the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is:
Whether the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused
Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2318 of 2021 on the file of the Court of
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, are liable to
be quashed by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.?
Determination by the Court
6. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages
that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to
make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the
Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to
secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not
functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must
exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts
and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling
4
reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against
sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana
and others v. Bhajanlal and others4 is considered as the guiding torch in the
exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At paras 102 and 103, the
circumstances necessary to invoke this jurisdiction are spelt out as follows;
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law
enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise
of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of
illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly
defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police
officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of
the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out
a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer4 AIR 1992 SC 604
5without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and
with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the
court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the instant case, Respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint against
the Petitioners alleging that, Petitioner/Accused No.1, who is the junior
paternal uncle of Respondent No.2, with a dishonest intention induced
Respondent No.2 and offered to sell his housing Plot Nos.4, 5, 7 and 8
located in Sy.No.68/2A5 of Joharapuram Village, Kurnool though the same
were assigned lands and he has no saleable interest. Accordingly, on
27.08.2004 Petitioner/Accused No.1 executed two Registered Sale Deeds in
his favour vide Doc.Nos.9439 and 9440 of 2004 on receipt of sale
6
consideration of Rs.4,00,000/-. Subsequently, when Respondent No.2 was in
need of money, tried to sell the said plots, he came to know that the said lands
are assigned lands and they cannot be sold. Having come to know about the
said fact, on 02.07.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., when Respondent No.2 along
with one Syed Munna approached Petitioner/Accused No.1 and his son
Petitioner/Accused No.2 and questioned the same and requested to return his
amount by cancelling the documents, they picked up a quarrel, abused him in
filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. Though he gave
a complaint to the Police, as they did not take any action, he filed a private
complaint.
9. The main allegation against the Petitioners is that, they sold the
assigned lands to Respondent No.2 by concealing the said fact and thereby
cheated him. A bare perusal of the material placed on record would clearly
show that, the Registered Sale Deeds were executed by the
Petitioner/Accused No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 on 27.08.2004,
whereas, the subject land was put under the prohibited list of properties by
way of a gazette notification in RCE2/2312/2013, dated 27.02.2019 for the
purpose of India Housing buildings, which is after 15 years of the alleged sale
transaction. As such, it is clear that, by the date of the sale of the property to
Respondent No.2, the same was not an assigned land as alleged by
Respondent No.2. Since the said land was put under prohibited list in the
year 2019 and the sale transaction was of the year 2004, the ingredients of
the offences under Sections 198 and 200 IPC do not attract. Admittedly, in
7
the instant case, there was not entrustment of any property of Respondent
No.2 to the Accused and in view of the subsequent inclusion of the subject
property in the prohibited list, dishonest intention and fraudulent inducement at
the inception cannot be attributed against the Petitioners. As such, the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC do not attract against the
Petitioners. Further, there is no false document in the instant case, the
offences under Sections 464 and 477 IPC also do not attract. Furthermore, as
there is no treat of injury to the person, reputation or property of Respondent
No.2, Section 506 IPC also does not attract against the Petitioners. As rightly
put by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, if the subject land was an
assigned land at the time of the sale transaction, the registration of the
documents would not have done. Furthermore, the allegations mentioned in
the complaint would clearly show that the dispute is with regard to the
saleable interest over a landed property, which is purely a civil dispute and the
same is given the cloak of criminal offence. The judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the Petitioners is squarely applicable to the present set of
facts.
10. Further, in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and others5 the
Hon’ble Apex Court at Para No.12 held as follows:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the
High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and
only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a
criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein.
Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to
be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may5
(2013) 11 SCC 673
8also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate
to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the
court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. In view of the above discussion and in view of the first guideline in
Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioners.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the
Petitioners.
12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed by quashing the
proceedings against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2318 of 2021
on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool for
the offences punishable under Sections 198, 200, 406, 420, 464, 477 and 506
read with 34 IPC.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________________
Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date:02.01.2025
Dinesh
9
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Crl.P.No.7798 of 2022
Dated:02.01.2025
Dinesh
