IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TH E STATE OF TELANGANA

*****

Criminal Petition No. 4571 of 2021

Between:

Gampa Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late Shankaraiah,

Aged: 54 years, Occu: Business, R/o.Alair Village and

Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District,

(Erstwhile Nalgonda District).

… Petitioner/Accused No.1

and

1. State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

… Respondent No.1

2. Gampa @ Gampala Narsimha, S/o.Ramaiah @ Ramulu,

Aged :62 years, Occu: Retired Employee,

R/o.Gundlagudem Village, Alair Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongir District – 508101.

… Respondent No.2/ De facto Complainant.

DATE OF JUDGMENT PR ONOUNCED: 22-07-2022

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

1 Whether Reporters of Local

newspapers may be allowed to see

the Judgments?

Yes/No

2 Whether the copies of judgment

may be marked to Law

Reports/Journals

Yes/No

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship

wish to see the fair copy of the

Judgment?

Yes/No

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

2

* THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTIC E CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

+ Criminal Petition No. 4571 of 2021

% 22-07-2022

# Gampa Krishnamurthy, S/o. Late Shankaraiah,

Aged: 54 years, Occu: Business, R/o.Alair Village and

Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District,

(Erstwhile Nalgonda District).

… Petitioner/Accused No.1

Vs.

$ 1. State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

… Respondent No.1

2. Gampa @ Gampala Narsimha, S/o.Ramaiah @ Ramulu,

Aged :62 years, Occu: Retired Employee,

R/o.Gundlagudem Village, Alair Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongir District – 508101.

… Respondent No.2/ De facto complainant.

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Papaiah Peddakula

Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali,

Assistant Public Prosecutor

Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and

others (Criminal Appeal No. 1285 OF 2021

(arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 9871 OF 2019)

decided on 26

th October, 2021)

2. State of Haryana & Others. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal

and Others ((1992) SCC (Cri) 426 (6))

3. Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.

(Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, decided on

02.09.2021)

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

3

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTIC E CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4571 OF 2021

ORDER

:

Alleging that the proceedi ngs are initiated wrongfully

against the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.1 in

F.I.R.No.47 of 2018 of Alair Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir

District, and thereby seeking the Court to quash the said

First Information Report, the present Criminal Petition is

filed.

2. Heard Sri Peddakula Papaiah, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the

unofficial respondent as well as learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor, who is representing respondent No.1-State.

3. When learned counsel for th e petitioner projected that

a false case was foisted against the petitioner (hereinafter be

referred as “Accused No.1”, for the sake of convenience of

discussion) by respondent No.2 (hereinafter be referred as

“the de facto complainant”, for the sake of convenience of

discussion), learned counsel appearing for the de facto

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

4 complainant submitted that as Accused No.1 committed the

offences of cheating and misappropriation, a complaint was

given against him and basing on the said complaint, police

registered a case and the same is pending for investigation

and, therefore, the presen t criminal petition is

unsustainable.

4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on instructions

submits that he came to know that the Accused are alleged

to have committed the offences of cheating and forgery and

the case is under investigation. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor further stated that a requisition was given to the

Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, to transmit the relevant

documents, which would aid the investigation.

5. The case of the de facto complainant, as could be

perceived from the contents of the complaint, is that Accused

No.1 is a close friend of the de facto complainant. On one

day, the de facto complainant received notices from the

Court, wherein it was mentioned that the Accused filed a suit

for specific performance of contract. On that, he engaged an

Advocate and verified the original documents that are filed in

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

5 O.S.No.65 of 2017 that stood pending on the file of the Court

of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. He could find that the

signatures available on the agreement of sale does not

pertain either to him or his son. When he refreshed his

memory, he could recollect that on one day, while he was in

possession of ROR Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed, he

spent some time with Accused No.1 at his house and

thereafter, he reached the Bus Stand and while getting down

from the Bus, he searched for the bag, which contain those

documents, but could not find. Immediately, he rushed to

the house of Accused No.1 and enquired about that bag, but

Accused No.1 informed that no bag was left at his house.

Thereafter, steps were taken for getting the duplicate

Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed. After enquiry, the

Tahsildar, Alair, issued duplicate ROR Pattadar Pass Book

and Title Deed. Basing on those documents, he offered to

sell the property. Though negotiations were held at the

house of Accused No.1, Accused No.1 did not raise any

objection, but all of a sudden he filed a suit by creating false

and fictitious documents.

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

6 6. The above narration of events formed basis for the

Court to refer the complaint that was filed under Section 200

Cr.P.C., to the Station House Officer, Alair Police Station, for

investigation and report. The Station House Officer, Alair

Police Station, on receiving the complaint, registered a case

in Crime No.47 of 2018 for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 468 read with 34 of I.P.C., and took up

investigation. The petitioner/Accused No.1 is aggrieved by

the said registration of the case.

7. Making his submission , learned counsel for the

petitioner/Accused No.1 narrated the following set of facts:

1) The de facto complainant executed an agreement of

sale on 23.07.2009 in favour of Accused No.1 in

respect of Ac.2-10 gts., of land i.e. situated in

Sy.No.998 of Alair Village;

2) On the date of execution of the agreement of sale,

the de facto complainant received Rs.50,000/- as

part of the sale consideration and handed over the

Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed to Accused No.1.

He agreed to execute the registered sale deed in

favour of Accused No.1 after getting No Objection

Certificate (NOC) from the revenue authorities as he

acquired the said land under Ex-Servicemen Quota;

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

7 3) The de facto complainant dragged on the matter by

postponing execution of the registered sale deed;

4) Due to hike of prices, the de facto complainant

raised dispute with Accused No.1. However, on the

advice and intervention of elders and well-wishers,

the de facto complainant agreed to sell half of the

land i.e. Ac.1-05 gts., for a total sale consideration of

Rs.11,50,000/- and executed another agreement of

sale on 04.12.2013 acknowledging that he received a

sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, a receipt was also issued by

the de facto complainant. In both the agreements

of sale i.e. agreement of sale dated 23.07.2009 and

agreement of sale dated 04.12.2013, it is clearly

mentioned that the de facto complainant handed

over the original Pattadar Certificate, original

Pattadar Pass Book and original Title Deed to

Accused No.1;

5) When the de facto complainant in collusion with

third parties tried to deprive the legitimate right of

Accused No.1, Accused No.1 gave a complaint to the

police. As there was no response, Accused No.1 filed

a writ petition vide W.P.No.23342 of 2017.

Thereafter, police registered a case in Crime No.111

of 2017 against the de facto complainant and seven

others. The matter was investigated into and

charge-sheet was laid vide C.C.No.94 of 2018, which

is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Alair.

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

8 6) Subsequently, Accused No.1 filed a suit in

O.S.No.64 of 2017, which is pending on the file of

the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, seeking

specific performance of agreement of sale against the

de facto complainant and the same is pending for

adjudication.

8. Mentioning and stressing upon the above set of events,

learned counsel for Accused No.1 contended that after filing

of the suit, Accused No.1 came to know that the de facto

complainant made false statements before the police officials

as well as the Revenue authorities that he lost the original

documents i.e. Pattadar Pass Book, Title Deed and Patta

Certificate and by misleading the authorities, obtained the

duplicate copies of those documents. Learned counsel

contended that suppressing all these events, the de facto

complainant lodged a complaint and the police having

received the complaint from the Court mechanically

registered a case and thus, continuation of proceedings is

undesirable.

9. The complaint, basing on which the case is registered

against Accused No.1 and others, as per the material

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

9 available on record, is dated 08.01.2018. Contending that

though the de facto complainant agreed to sell the property

to him, executed two agreements of sale and received a total

sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and handed over the relevant

documents to him and thereafter failed to turn up to execute

the registered sale deed and further had misrepresented and

obtained duplicate copies, the petitioner/Accused No.1 in the

year, 2017 itself gave complaint to police and after

investigation, the police laid charge sheet against respondent

No.2/de facto complainant that he had committed offences

punishable under Sections 420, 504 read with 34 I.P.C..

Also, by the material available on record, it is clear that in

the year 2017 itself, the petitioner/Accused No.1 filed a suit

vide O.S.No.64 of 2017 against respondent No.2/ de facto

complainant and others for specific performance of contract.

Thus, all the contentions raised and the submission made by

learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 appears

genuine.

10. As rightly put-forth by learned counsel for the

petitioner/Accused No.1, the defences, if any, which ought to

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

10 have taken in the written statement, were converted into a

complaint and criminal proceedings were initiated by

respondent No.2/de facto complainant against the

petitioner/Accused No.1 and others. This is impermissible

under law. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well

as this Court had held that the criminal law cannot be put

into motion for settlement of civil disputes. On going

through the entire material available on record, this Court is

of the opinion that filing of a complaint invoking Section 200

Cr.P.C., by respondent No.2/ de facto complainant is

undesirable and such complaints are not liable to be

entertained. The very purpose of establishment of criminal

Courts and the Police Stations is not to settle the civil

disputes. Indicating that initiation of criminal proceedings to

settle civil disputes should not be entertained, the Hon’ble

Apex Court in a case between Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs.

State of Karnataka and othe rs (Criminal Appeal No.

1285 OF 2021 (arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 9871 OF

2019) decided on 26

th October, 2021), at Para Nos.44 to

47 held as follows:

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

11

“44. Furthermore, in the landmark judgment of State of

Haryana & Others. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others ((1992) SCC

(Cri) 426 (6)) regarding exercise of inherent powers under Section

482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has laid down following categories of

instances wherein inherent powers of the can be exercised in

order to secure the ends of justice. These are:-

“(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

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

12

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.”

45. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix, it can be safely

concluded that the present case clearly falls within the ambit of first,

third and fifth category of the seven categories enlisted in the above

said judgment. The case therefore warrants intervention by this

Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed

by the Appellants under Section 482

CrPC. We find that there has

been attempt to stretch the contours of a civil dispute and thereby

essentially impart a criminal color to it.

46. Recently, this Court in case of Randheer Singh Vs. The State of

U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021, decided on

02.09.2021), has again reiterated the long standing principle that

criminal proceedings must not be used as instruments of

harassment. The court observed as under:-

“33. ….There can be no doubt that jurisdiction

under Section 482

of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly

for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

13

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a

complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the

nature of the allegation and whether the essential

ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to

be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a

complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a

criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see

whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour

of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court

should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as

held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted

above.”

47. Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its

disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made

merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a

criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is

nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be

discouraged in its entirety.”

11. Thus, in the back drop of the discussion that went on,

this Court is of the view that the inherent powers under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are liable to

be invoked to quash the proceedings. It is found that the

Criminal Proceedings were maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive to settle the civil disputes.

Dr.CSL, J

Crl.P.No.4571 of 2021

14

12. Therefore, this Court is of the view that initiation of

proceedings is undesirable and, therefore, the proceedings as

prayed for are liable to be quashed.

13. Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The

proceedings initiated against the petitioner/Accused No.1 in

Crime No.47 of 2018 of Alair Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir

District, are hereby quashed.

As a sequel, pending Mis cellaneous Applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

____________________________________

DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J

Date: 22.07.2022

Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.

B/o.

svl