HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.Nos. 1920, 2218 and 5366 of 2008 Date: 29-04-2010 Between: Gudla Navajeevan Gupta ……….. Petitioner and The State of A.P. and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.Nos. 1920, 2218 and 5366 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal petitions have been filed by A-2, A-3 to A-8 and A-9 respectively to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.168 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam. 2. Since all these Criminal Petitions arise out of the same C.C., they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the said C.C. for the sake of convenience. The complainant and A-1 are the partners in some landed properties and they were doing business since long time, A-1 borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from the complainant on 27-12-2006 for his family expenses and executed a promissory note for the said amount. The complainant demanded A-1 for repayment of the said amount, but A-1 had been postponing the payment. On 18-12-2007, A-1 and A-2 trespassed into the house of the complainant at about 9-00 PM, threatened him and obtained his signatures on 12 empty promissory notes and highhandedly opened the complainant’s almyrah and took out the cheque books and obtained his signatures on nine cheques bearing Nos.883600, 208952, 208954, 208955, 208959, 208960, 254167, 254170 and 0053289 of ING Vysya Bank, Srikakulam. The complainant gave a complaint to the police against A-1 and A-2. Subsequently, he got issued a legal notice through his counsel to A-1 and A-2 on 28-12- 2007 intimating that his signatures have been forcibly obtained on the promissory notes and cheques. His further case is that A-1 and A-2 issued a reply notice on 08-01-2008 with all false allegations. A-3 also filed a case against the complainant before the Principal Senior Civil judge at Srikakulam in I.A.No.18 of 2008 in O.S.No.9 of 2008 by A-3 for recovery of an amount of Rs.9,38,000/-. It is further alleged that A-1 and A-2 in collusion with A-6 to A-9 converted the said document as a valuable security and presented one cheque bearing No.208952 and issued a legal notice to the complainant and A-1 filed a case against him in the District Court at Srikakulam in O.S.No.1 of 2008 for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,75,400/- and also sought attachment of his properties in I.A.No.106 of 2008 in the said suit. The further case of the complainant is that A-1 and A-2 in collusion with A-9 presented a cheqbe bearing No.883600 and issued a telegram notice, dated 22- 02-2008 to the complainant. 4. The case of the complainant is that he got issued a legal notice to A-1 to A-5 on 06-02-2008 and that A-1 and A-2 issued a reply notice, dated 18-02-2008 to the complainant with false allegations and A-3 to A-5 issued a reply notice, dated 19-02-2008. 5. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose when A-1 and A-2 tresspassed into his house on 18-12-2007 and when the complainant gave a police report against A-1 and A-2 and when he got issued a legal notice to A-1 and A-2 on 28-12-2007 and when A-1 and A-2 issued reply notice on 08-01-2008 and when subsequent suits were filed by A-1 to A-9 and when the complainant issued a legal notice on 06-02-2008 to A-1 to A-8 and when the Accused issued reply notice to the complainant on 18-02-2008 and when the complainant issued reply notice to A-9 on 25-02-2008. 6. Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 to A-8, and Sri D. Purnachandra Reddy, Advocate, representing Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/A-9, submitted that a false complaint has been given against the Accused and when on the face of complaint it appears that a false complaint has been given, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. They have also referred to a copy of the complaint said to have been given by the complainant to the police on 19-12-2007 and also receipt issued by the police to show that the complainant presented the said complaint to the police on 19-12-2007. It is their further submission that the contents of the complaint given by the complainant to the police on 19-12-2007 categorically go to show that in the complainant he stated that while he was proceeding on a motorcycle from his house, near Dental College, he had lost his bag containing one cell phone (Nokia), signed cheques and promissory notes and when he came back and searched for the bag, it could not be traced. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent- complainant submitted that only the contents of the complaint have to be taken into consideration and since the allegations of the complaint show the ingredients of the offence, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-9. 9. Inherent powers of the Court have to be exercised with due care and caution. Where it appears that the allegations set out in the complaint or charge sheet do not constitute any offence, the proceedings can be quashed. What is to be seen is whether the complainant is abusing the process of law. Where a reading of the allegations themselves shows that no prima facie case has been made out or that the allegations are improbable and against normal human conduct or that no prudent person would accept the allegations as true, in such circumstances, the proceedings have to be quashed. 10. Admittedly, the complainant is doing real estate business and A-1 is his partner. Both of them were doing business for several years. According to the complainant, A-1 borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- on 27-12-2006 and when he demanded to repay the said amount, A-1 along with A-2 trespassed into his house on 18-12- 2007 at 9-00 PM, threatened him, forcibly obtained his signatures on 12 promissory notes and highhandedly opened the almyrah and took out the cheque books and obtained his signatures on nine cheques. It is also his case that subsequently, he has given a police report. Though the documents filed by the Accused, at this stage, cannot be looked into, but it is not denied that the complainant did not give the report as shown in the copy of the complaint filed by the Accused along with the receipt issued by the police authorities. It appears that the complainant has not placed any record to show that he approached the police as claimed by him. If at all the incident alleged by the complainant had taken place, the complainant, being a businessman, would not have kept quite and in all probabilities if at all the police did not take any action, he would have approached the superior police officers. 11. If superior police officers did not take action, he would have filed complaint immediately. Mere delay in filing a complaint alone is not a ground to quash the proceedings, but all the surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration. Where in a case it appears that the allegations in the complaint are false, improbable, such complaints have to be quashed. 12. It has to be seen that the present complaint was filed in February, 2008 i.e., about 48 days after the alleged incident, but there is no explanation as to why the complainant could not approach the superior police officers and could not file the complaint immediately after the alleged incident. As seen from the contents of the complaint itself, it is clear that certain cheques were presented in January, 2008 itself. According to the complainant, he had issued a legal notice on 28-12-2007 and that A-1 and A-2 had given reply on 08-01-2008. Thus there seems to be exchange of legal notices between the parties. So the allegations made by the complainant have been denied by A-1 in his reply notice, dated 08-01-2008. Even after denial of those allegations, no complaint was given to the police. 13. The circumstances of this case i.e., pendency of civil litigation between the parties, conduct of the complainant in not giving any report to the police immediately after the occurrence and the exchange of notices between the parties with regard to the alleged incident and denial of the incident, it appears that only to overcome the consequences of bouncing of the cheques and to escape from legal liability, the complainant seems to have indulged in filing this false complaint. Since a reading of the complaint itself gives an impression that the contents of the complaint are false, baseless, against normal human conduct and against all human probabilities, I am of the view that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-9 will result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 14. In the result, all the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-2 to A-9 in C.C.No.168 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Srikakulam, are hereby quashed. The observation, if any, in this order may not be taken into consideration, while disposing of the civil cases or other matters between the parties herein by the respective Courts. 15. It is represented that A-1 is not the party in this Criminal Petitions. 16. When once the proceedings against all other Accused have been quashed, it may not be justified to continue the proceedings against A-1, though he did not approach this Court. Therefore, entire proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2008 stands quashed. _________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 29-04-2010 YCR