[ad_1]
Telangana High Court
Pulipati Prasad vs The State Of Telangana on 1 August, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11908 OF 2023
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, who
are arrayed as the accused Nos.1 to 6, seeking to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated in C.C.No.797 of 2022 vide
impugned cognizance order dated 27.04.2022 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.59 of 2022 in Crime
No.159 of 2019 on the file of the learned III Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-III Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Khammam.
02. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior
Counsel representing Pillix Law Firm, appearing on behalf of
the petitioners; Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1; and Sri
M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.
03(a). In brief, the case of the complainant-respondent
No.2 is that she is a practicing Advocate and her husband
2
runs a book stall and bookbinding business and they are
blessed with three children. The complainant’s family
consists of her father Pulipati Narisimha Rao, her mother
Bharathi, elder brother Pulipati Prasad i.e. the petitioner-
accused No.1, and younger sister Khaja Krishna Veni, who is
settled in the United States. The complainant and her family
members jointly own certain properties situated at Thanikella
Revenue Village of Chinthakani Mandal and Kesavapuram
Village of Kusumanchi Mandal.
03(b). In the year 1997, the petitioner-accused No.1
initiated a series of educational societies with the active
participation and joint investment of family members. The
said societies include: Sri Sri China Jeeyar Swamy
Educational Society, Sri Balaji Educational Society, Sri
Sairam Educational Society, Sri Sai Durga Balaji Health &
Educational Welfare Society, Poulomi Educational Society,
Hyderabad, wherein the complainant, her parents, her sister,
and other extended relatives were designated as office
bearers in various capacities including President, Secretary,
Treasurer, Joint Secretary, and Executive Members.
3
03(c). It is alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1
assumed unilateral control over all the said educational
institutions and he failed to convene general body meetings,
did not present or maintain transparent accounts, and
misappropriated society funds. Further, he was alleged to
have diverted the profits from these jointly invested
institutions for the purchase of properties in the names of his
wife and children, without the knowledge or consent of the
other stakeholders.
03(d). It is further alleged that under the pretext of
processing salary payments for employees of the societies,
the petitioner-accused No.1 procured blank cheques bearing
signatures from the complainant and other family members.
These cheques were later misused, and false cases under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were instituted
against the complainant and her family in various states
across India.
03(e). Further, it is alleged that the petitioner-accused
No.1 forged the signatures of the complainant and her family
4
members and falsely submitted notarised documents before
the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad, purporting their
voluntary resignation from various posts held in the societies.
The forged documents were later verified by Truth Labs,
Hyderabad, and a forensic report dated 14.08.2014
confirmed that the signatures were not genuine. Based on
these allegations, the complainant lodged criminal
complaints before Khammam III Town Police Station which is
presently under adjudication before the III Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Khammam, Medipally Police Station,
Hyderabad pending before the III Additional Metropolitan
Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
03(f). It is further alleged that the petitioner-accused
No.1, upon being questioned regarding financial
transparency and governance, distanced himself from the
complainant and her family and, in retaliation, filed false
criminal cases, including cases under the Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, IPC
provisions and multiple Section 138 Negotiable Instruments
Act cases across different jurisdictions. Aggrieved by the
5
continued harassment and misuse of legal process, the
complainant filed private complaint seeking initiation of
appropriate criminal proceedings against the accused
persons including the petitioners.
04. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners, arrayed as Accused
Nos.1 to 6, have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged
offences. The petitioners are embroiled in civil disputes
relating to immovable property with respondent No.2. It is
further submitted that the respondent No.2 had instituted
multiple civil suits claiming property rights, all of which were
dismissed by the competent Civil Courts. Upon institution of
the present private complaint by the respondent No.2, the
same was referred to the police for enquiry. After conducting
due enquiry, the Police referred the case as ‘false’ under
C.No.426/Per/ACP-T/2021 dated 07.09.2021 and filed a final
report to that effect on 30.09.2021. However, based on a
protest petition filed belatedly by the respondent No.2 in
month of February 2022 which is five months after
submission of the final report, the learned Magistrate took
6
cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons,
including the petitioners vide impugned docket order dated
27.04.2022, without assigning any reasons. It is submitted
that the entire dispute is civil in nature, and that the
respondent No.2 has made a deliberate attempt to give a
criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute, thereby
abusing the process of law. Hence, the learned Senior
Counsel prays that the impugned cognizance order dated
27.04.2022 and the consequential proceedings in C.C.
No.797 of 2022 be quashed insofar as they pertain to the
petitioners herein.
05. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well
as Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 contended that there is no illegality or
irregularity in the impugned cognizance order passed by the
learned trial Court and there are triable issues and factual
aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is
not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the
7
petitioners at this juncture and prayed to dismiss this
Criminal Petition.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, and upon consideration of the submissions
advanced by both sides, it is evident from the record that the
complainant and the petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos.1
to 6, are members of the same family and that there exist
property disputes among them. It is not in dispute that
several criminal cases, including those under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, are pending between the
parties. In the present private complaint, the allegations
pertain to incidents said to have occurred during different
years. However, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the
complaint, the police referred the matter as ‘false’ and filed a
final report to that effect dated 30.09.2021.
07. A careful perusal of the contents of the complaint
reveals that the dispute essentially pertains to business
transactions. The final report was filed on 30.09.2021 and
the protest petition was filed by the complainant in the month
8
of February, 2022. It is also pertinent to note that there is an
unexplained and inordinate delay of around four months in
filing the protest petition, which casts a serious doubt on the
genuineness and veracity of the allegations of the
respondent No.2.
08. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is relevant to extract the cognizance docket order
passed by the learned Magistrate, which reads as follows:
“Heard. Reasons satisfied. Prima facie allegations
against accused are satisfied. The Office is
directed to register the C.C. and issue summons
to the accused. Call on 30.06.2023.”
09. Upon a careful scrutiny of the said impugned
order, it is evident that the learned Magistrate took
cognizance against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6
without assigning any independent, proper, or cogent
reasons for doing so. It is further to be noted that the
impugned order does not even specify the relevant penal
provisions allegedly attracted, nor does it mention the serial
numbers or specific roles of the accused persons. Such a
9
cryptic and non-speaking order, passed at the stage of taking
cognizance, fails to reflect due application of judicial mind.
10. It is a well-settled principle of law that it is the
bounden duty of the Magistrate to apply his judicial mind and
record satisfaction as to whether the allegations made in the
complaint, on their face, constitute the essential ingredients
of the offences alleged. The act of taking cognizance and
summoning an accused in a criminal proceeding is a matter
of serious consequence and cannot be undertaken in a
routine or mechanical manner. The criminal law machinery
should not be set in motion casually or without proper
scrutiny. The order taking cognizance and issuing process
must reflect due application of judicial mind not only to the
factual matrix but also to the legal provisions applicable to
the case. Failure to comply with such mandatory procedural
safeguards renders the cognizance order legally
unsustainable and vitiates the process.
11. It is a settled position of law that criminal
proceedings are not to be used as a shortcut to settle civil
10
claims or disputes for which alternate remedies exist under
the law. The initiation of criminal prosecution has serious
consequences for the accused, and therefore, before issuing
process, the criminal court must apply judicial mind and
exercise caution.
12. Referring to the growing tendency in business
circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC
India Ltd., 1 it was held at Paragraph No.13 that:
“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take
notice of a growing tendency in business circles
to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect the
interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is
seen in several family disputes also, leading to
irretrievable break down of marriages/families.
There is also an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any
effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do
not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure though criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged.”
1
(2006) 6 SCC 736
11
13. Further, in the case of G.Sagar Suri v. State of
Uttar Pradesh2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Paragraph
No.8 it was held that:
“8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise
of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the
matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter,
which is essentially of civil nature, has been given
a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings
are not a short cut of other remedies available in
law. Before issuing process a criminal court has
to exercise a great deal of caution. For the
accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid
certain principles on the basis of which High
Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this Section
has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice.”
14. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan
Lal and others 3 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held
that:
“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
following categories of cases are given by way of
illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process2
(2000) 2 SCC 636
3
1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335
12of 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 guide 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 F.I.R. 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 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
13is 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.”
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has
failed to discharge the judicial obligation of assessing
whether the allegations made in the complaint, on a prima
facie evaluation, constitute the commission of the offences
alleged. It further appears that the present criminal
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and
have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to
harass the accused persons, including the present
petitioners, and to wreak vengeance owing to private and
14
personal animosity. This Court cannot ignore the growing
trend of converting purely civil disputes into criminal
proceedings, particularly in business and family disputes.
Such misuse of the criminal justice system appears to stem
from the perception that civil remedies are time-consuming
and insufficiently effective, thereby prompting parties to
invoke criminal law as a means of exerting pressure to
secure private settlements. This practice undermines the
sanctity of criminal law. The invocation of criminal
prosecution as a tool for coercive recovery or for settling
personal scores in matters devoid of any criminality is wholly
impermissible and must be strongly deprecated and
discouraged. As such, the present case squarely falls within
the parameters of Point No.7 of the guidelines enunciated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal’s decision cited
supra.
16. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate has
committed a serious procedural irregularity in taking
cognizance without recording any prima facie findings or
assigning cogent and independent reasons. Consequently,
15
the impugned cognizance docket order dated 27.04.2022
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.59 of 2022 in
Crime No.159 of 2019 in C.C.No.797 of 2022 by the learned
III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-III
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, is held to be legally
unsustainable, patently erroneous, and constitutes a
manifest abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the said
order is hereby set aside and all proceedings sought to be
taken in furtherance thereof are declared to be gross abuse
of the process of law and are liable to be quashed and set
aside.
17. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The
impugned cognizance docket order dated 27.04.2022,
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.59 of 2022 in
Crime No.159 of 2019 in C.C.No.797 of 2022 by the learned
III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-III
Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khammam, is hereby set
aside. Consequently, all proceedings sought to be taken in
furtherance thereof are declared to be a gross abuse of the
process of law and are hereby quashed and set aside.
16
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Dated: 01-AUG-2025
KHRM
[ad_2]
Source link