A. CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.65 of 2021 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The respondent Nos.2 and 3/de-facto complainants filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, making certain allegations against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. The learned Magistrate, having examined the complaint, referred the said complaint to the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for filing report, holding that the material available before the Court shows the requirement of thorough probe and investigation into the allegation, as levelled in the complaint. Learned Magistrate further held that during the course of enquiry, the police must bear in mind the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P., in W.P.(Criminal) No.61/2008, dated 12.11.2013 and directed to call the matter on 16.02.2021 for report. On such referral, the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2021 against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 for the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406, 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the registration of the said First Information Report, this Criminal Petition is filed to quash the same.

(2.) Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioners/ A-1 to A-3, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State, Sri Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for Sri H.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also Sri N.Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the record.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 would submit that the allegations in the subject private complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the alleged offences. The dispute between the parties to litigation is purely civil in nature. The complaint lodged by the de-facto complainants before the learned Magistrate is false and frivolous. The de-facto complainants have already filed a suit for specific performance of the alleged contract before the competent civil Court. No criminal acts are attributable to the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, as alleged. Further, this Court, by order, dated 26.03.2021, was pleased to stay all further proceedings in the subject crime till 16.04.2021. This Court, vide order dated 16.04.2021, was pleased to extend the said interim order till 23.04.2021. Further, this Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner Nos.1 and 3/A-1 and A3 in the subject crime. The subject complaint was filed by the defacto complainants after filing a comprehensive civil suit before a competent civil Court arising out of same transaction and same set of facts, that too after lapse of several months, only with a mala fide intention to extract more money from A-1 and the same is nothing, but abuse of process of law. In the said civil suit filed by the de-facto complainants, they could not get any interim order in their favour. The de-facto complainants, with an ill motive and by suppressing the material facts, are trying to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal Court in a case, wherein the dispute is purely civil in nature. Though the de-facto complainants alleged in the subject private complaint that they have earlier lodged a report with Panjagutta Police Station, neither a copy of the said complaint is enclosed with the subject private complaint nor the action taken by the police in that regard was mentioned in the subject private complaint. Thus, the very approach of the de-facto complainants in initiating the criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 is attended with mala fides. Already petitioner No.2/A-2 was arrested by the police and sent to judicial remand and subsequently, he was released on bail. Now, the police authorities are making serious efforts to arrest petitioner Nos.1 and 3/A-1 and A-3 at the instance of the de-facto complainants. When the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail, this Court, while granting interim protection from arrest, suggested the parties to settle the matter amicably. Honouring the said suggestion, the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 made reasonable proposal to the de-facto complainants through their counsel. But the de-facto complainants, on one side acting as if they are intending to amicably settle the matter, on the other side pressing to vacate the interim order and dismiss the subject criminal petition, in order to harass the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 with an oblique motive. There is no iota of truth in the allegations in the subject private complaint. Further, the allegation that an amount of Rs.3.5 crores was paid in cash to the petitioner/A-3 by the de-facto complainants is absolutely false. Such a huge amount, in cash, cannot be paid to any person. The said alleged payment is hit by Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that no person/individual shall receive an amount of Rs.2 lakhs or more from another person/individual in a day. Moreover, the receipt, dated 09.04.2019, alleged to be issued by the petitioner/A-3 has nothing to do with the subject property, since neither he is the owner nor the possessor of the same. The police ought to have made preliminary enquiry before registering the subject crime against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 are motivated proceedings, which are aimed to harass them and would amount to abuse of judicial process. In a quash petition, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint whether prima facie discloses offences or not. No essential ingredients are made out constituting the offences alleged against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 and ultimately prayed to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel had placed strong reliance on the following decisions.