Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Panday Mohan Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2025
APHC010618182022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 9029/2022
Between:
Panday Mohan Prasad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. UTTARA LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. T V SRI DEVI
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following ORDER:
The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.2, seeking
quashment of the proceedings against him in C.C.No.213 of 2019 on the file of
Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili.
2. Heard Sri K.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the Petitioner and
Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the
State/Respondent No.1 and Sri T.V.Sridevi, learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has nothing
to do with the present case and is innocent. It is stated that no evidence is
collected during the course of investigation by the investigating officer in this
matter. Learned trial Judge took cognizance of offence under Section 420 IPC
without judicial application of mind. Learned counsel would further submit that
even as per the contents of the information which was presented to the police by
respondent No.2, A1 only collected the amount on false promise for providing
jobs in Samsung Company and Railways. It is the case of the complainant that
they have deposited Rs.6 Lakhs in the account of A1. No incriminating material
against the petitioner is available on record. Learned counsel would further
submit that there is no identity of the petitioner by the complainant. Phone
number which is referred in the complaint is not connected to the petitioner. It is
the number which is available in public domain. Petitioner is running a cell shop.
Learned counsel would further submit that except phone call alleged to have
been received from A1, nothing is attributed against A2. The question of
inducement, delivery of property does not arise against the petitioner. Learned
counsel finally submits that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner
is mere abuse of process of law. To buttress his contention, learned counsel
placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in A.M.Mohan
vs. State represented by SHO and another1 in Crl.A.No. of 2024 (Arising out
of SLP (Criminal) No.9598 of 2022) and Archana Rana vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another2.
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 339
2
(2021) 3 SCC 751
3
4. Para No.13 of the A.M.Mohan (supra) reads as under:-
“13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of
Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the
ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person
cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the
property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable
security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being
converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the
provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the
FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to
deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of
making the inducement.”
5. Para 10 of Archana Rana (supra) reads as under:-
“10. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the charge-
sheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the
allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an
offence under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. Whatever allegations are
made for the offence with respect to inducement and/or even giving
Rs.5,00,000/- for obtaining the job, are made against the
appellant’s husband, co-accused. There are no allegations at all
that the appellant herein induced the complainant to get the job and
the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the appellant herein.
Therefore, even if all the allegations in the complaint taken at the
face value are true, in our view, the basic essential ingredients of
cheating are missing. Therefore, this was a fit case for the High
Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to
quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein for the
offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. The High Court has
failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by not quashing the
criminal proceedings against the appellant herein for the offences
under Sections 419 and 420 IPC.”
6. Contrasting the same, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would
submit that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are not
applicable to the facts of the present case, since there are allegations against A2
that the complainant haven spoken with A2 and confirmed thereafter only he has
4
given money to A1. Learned counsel would further submit that the charge sheet
filed by the Police would disclose the incriminating material against A2. Hence, it
is not a fit case for quashment.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the petition and
would submit that there are ingredients to attract the offence under Section 420
IPC and prays for dismissal of the petition.
Determination of the Court
8. Before delving into the instant case, it is appropriate to chalk out certain
settled principles of law in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482, which
reads as follows;
Section 482- Saving of inherent powers of High Court
“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary
to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
9. The idea behind conferring inherent power to the High Court to is to meet
exigencies that may likely arise where the Cr.P.C. fails to provide a specific
provision, for a given issue. To put it differently, no legislative enactment can be
so complete a package to deal with the procedure concerning all causes that are
likely to arise. It is for this reason the Courts have certain inherent powers, in
addition to the ones that are expressed by law, for the proper discharge of their
functions and effective administration of justice.
10. 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)
5
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
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 reasons of abuse of process of law or
glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence.
11. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be
present. To identify these specific circumstances, it is essential to discuss some
precedents. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of
Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others3 is considered as the guiding torch
in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances 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 channelized 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 officers3
AIR 1992 SC 604
6under 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 officer without 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)
7
12. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao
Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre4 held as follows;
“The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial
stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as
to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie
establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration
any special features which appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a
prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot
be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the
court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no
useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal
prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration
the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it
may be at a preliminary stage.”
13. The basic requirements/ingredients to bring home the accusations under
the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. is to constitute the said offence,
there must be deception i.e. the accused must have deceived someone; that by
such deception the accused must induce a person (i) to deliver any property; or
(ii) to make, alter, destroy a whole or part of the valuable security or anything
which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
property; or (iii) that the accused must have done so dishonestly.
14. In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and
Others5, a three Judge Bench of this Court laid down the following principles of
law:-
“57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of
the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the
following principles of law emerge:
4 (1988) 1 SCC 692
5
2021 SCC OnLine SC 315
8
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to
investigate into cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable
offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any
kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit
an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The rarest of rare cases
standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context
of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the
court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii)
Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than
an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the
police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres
of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to
secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not
overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in
miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not
interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or
caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must
disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not
go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted
to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve
9
to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During
or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating
officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment
of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had
to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law,
more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of
R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash
the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused,
the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only
has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the
commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on
merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and
the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the
allegations in the FIR.”
6. We will now, carefully scan the application filed by the respondent
herein which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3),
Cr.P.C to consider whether the appellant is justified in taking up the
contention that the allegations raised thereunder did not contain the
ingredients to constitute the alleged offences or whether the respondent
had made out a prima facie case for investigation. In that regard it is
worthwhile to take note of the fact that the respondent herein has
alleged commission of offences under Sections 323, 384, 406, 423, 467,
468, 420 and 120B, IPC against the appellants. We will refer to the
ingredient to constitute such offences to consider the said question.
15. In the back drop of the legal decisions referred (supra), the factual matrix of
the present case has to be scrutinised. It is alleged against the petitioner that he
is a friend of A1. A1 assured respondent No.2 that A2 can provide employment
by taking amount. It is also the case of the complainant that after conforming with
10
A2, they have believed the words of A1 and transferred an amount of
Rs.13,65,000/- to the account of A1 in four spells.
16. As rightly put by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 when there is a
verifiable material present in the case, the case cannot be quashed. The case in
Archana Rana referred (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case.
The reason being in the said case, the husband of Archana Rana collected the
amount. The case is lodged against her simply on the ground that she is the wife
of the said accused. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is a specific case
of the complainant that, A1 under the false promise to provide jobs with the help
of A2 collected the amount from the complainant and others and total amount
collected from the gullible public is Rs.42 lakhs. That apart in the present case, it
is alleged that the complainant after confirming his issue with A2 only parted with
the amounts.
17. As rightly put by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor when there is a
verifiable material which requires investigation at the full length of trial, quashing
a case is not countenanced. Considering the submissions made, this is not the
stage to decide the truth or otherwise of the contentions raised in the present
petition. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
cannot conduct a mini trial to rule out the role of the Petitioner and his
involvement in the present crime.
18. In that view, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
11
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Dt.07.01.2025
SCS
12
243
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9029 OF 2022
Dated :07.01.2025
SCS
[ad_1]
Source link