IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5626 OF 2010 Between:- Navuluri Anjaiah and another …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRL.P.No.5626 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.1021 of 2008, on the file of the II-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. Perused the records. 3. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners before the II-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole alleging offences under Sections 383, 420, 468, 506 and 509 IPC and the same was referred to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ongole I-Town Police registered a case in Cr.No.133 of 2008 and after investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners which was taken cognizance C.C.No.1021 of 2008 by the learned Magistrate. According to the prosecution, the complainant purchased land from M.Radha Krishnaiah through the mediation of Ch.Ramanjaneyulu and at that time as there was shortage of funds and Ram Anjaneyulu introduced the complainant to A-1 to arrange loan of Rs.70,000/-. The complainant executed a promissory note in favour of A-1 and A-1 obtained a blank cheque of State Bank of India, Kavali and one blank promissory note signed by the complainant on 20-11-2003. The complainant repaid a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 12-07-2004 to A-2 in the presence of S.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and obtained a receipt from A-2, but A-2 has not informed the said payment by the complainant to A-1. The complainant paid another sum of Rs.12,000/- on 11- 03-2005. He also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- on 20-09- 2006. The complainant sold away his land to P.Venkateswarlu and informed A-1 to be present at the time of registration on 19-07-2007 so that the balance debt can be repaid. A-1 sent his nephew Manam Suresh to collect the money from the complainant. The complainant gave Rs.1,55,000/- in the presence of witnesses to Suresh and also informed the same to A-1 by phone. Thus, the complainant repaid a total sum of Rs.2,05,000/-, as against the original debt of Rs.70,000/-. A-1, being a financier, with a mala fide intention, did not settle the account. When the complainant expressed his anguish, A-1 grew wild and insulted the modesty of complainant’s wife and abused her in filthy language. Taking advantage of the blank cheque, A-1 filled the same and presented the same at Syndicate Bank, Ongole for collection and the said cheque was bounced. A-1 also filled up blank promissory note for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. A- 1 also filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,08,000/-. The investigating officer found that the allegation of extortion and forgery are not established and, therefore, deleted the offences falling under Sections 383 and 468 IPC. The charge sheet was, therefore, filed for the other offences under Sections 420,509, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. It is not disputed that the suit O.S.No.135 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, filed by A-1 against the complainant for recovery of Rs.3,08,000/- was decreed on 24-11-2009. In the said suit also, the complainant, who was defendant therein, raised the self-same contentions as stated above. A reference is also made in the written statement about lodging of F.I.R in Cr.No.133 of 2008. Though the complainant herein, defendant in O.S.No.135 of 2008, filed a written statement and contested the suit alleging that the suit promissory note is fabricated on a blank document containing the signature, he has not chosen to adduce evidence, oral or documentary in the said suit. On the other hand, the first petitioner herein, who was the plaintiff, adduced oral and documentary evidence and the trial Court, based on the evidence on record, held that the plaintiff proved the execution of the suit promissory note and passage of consideration thereunder. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and the present private complaint is filed by way of abuse of process of law in order to coerce the accused to terms. 6. It can be seen that the main allegation of the complainant is one of extortion and fabrication of the cheque and promissory note. The investigating officer, after due investigation, found that the said allegation remained baseless and, therefore, the offences under Sections 383 and 468 IPC were deleted. The charge sheet is now taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 509 and 506 IPC. As can be seen from the allegations contained in the charge sheet or the averments in the charge sheet and also the pleadings in O.S.No.135 of 2008, it is manifestly clear that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are not attracted even prima facie. The fact that having raised self-same defence by way of written statement in O.S.No.135 of 2008, the complainant did not even bother to adduce any evidence in support of his defence, would expose the hollowness of his allegation. He also did not choose to give any evidence in O.S.No.135 of 2008 with a view to repudiate the disputed documents. The allegation pertaining to the offences under Sections 509 and 506 IPC is too vague and ambiguous. It is obvious that the present complaint is filed with a view to forestall any action by the accused for recovery of the amounts. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would rely on a decision of the Apex Court in V.Y. JOSE AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER[1] held as follows: “Section 482 serves a salutary purpose that a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years although no case has been made out against him. A matter which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence, the latter being a short cut of executing a decree which is non-existent. The superior courts, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of court. They have a duty in terms of Sections 483 to supervise functioning of the trial Courts.” In the present case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and hence the same cannot be allowed to be converted into a criminal offence. Further, the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are also not attracted and the allegations pertaining to Sections 506 and509 IPC are too vague to be taken note of, as even the basic particulars as to the commission of the alleged offences are not disclosed. 8. In the circumstances, it is considered to be a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/accused in C.C.No.1021 of 2008, on the file of the II-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, as continuance of the said proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law. 9. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th December, 2010 Lrkm. [1] (2009)3 SCC 78