THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4156 of 2008 15.7.2010 Between Burra Venkateswarlu, S/o.Laxminarayana … Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4156 of 2008 ORDER: Second respondent gave a report to P.S. Manuguru complaining of offence under Sections 415 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the petitioner. The Police refused to register the same as cognizable offence. Therefore he moved the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru, by filing a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC). The same was endorsed to the P.S.Manuguru, based on which crime No.147 of 2008 was registered. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the investigation in the said crime. Second respondent in his complaint to the Criminal Court alleged as follows. Second respondent, petitioner and one Dara Narasimha Rao jointly purchased an extent of Acs.11.00 situated at Mallampally Village of Mulug Mandal in Warangal District under registered sale deed. The petitioner contributed Rs.4,75,000/-. Subsequently there was a partition and petitioner got Acs.4.00 to his share. He offered it to second respondent for Rs.4,75,000/- and second respondent allegedly paid Rs.2,00,000/- towards advance and agreed to pay balance amount subsequently. It was also alleged that on 22.11.2007 petitioner executed another document admitting possession of four blank promissory notes given as security for the balance sale consideration. Second respondent refused to register sale deed even though balance consideration was tendered and got issued a legal notice alleging that petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under promissory note dated 16.1.2006. He alleged that promissory notes were forged and the claim made by the petitioner is illegal. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the Counsel for second respondent. The documents produced are also perused. Reference is made to the decisions in Ajay Mitra v State of M.P.[1], Inder Mohan Goswami v State of Uttaranchal[2], All Cargo Movers (India) (P) Ltd v Dhanesh Badarmal Jail[3], M/s.Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd v M/s.Rajvir Industries Ltd[4] Subodh S. Salaskar v Jayprakash M.Shah[5]. The dispute between the petitioner and second respondent ex facie appears to be one arising out of contract of sale. It is sought to be given cloak of criminal proceeding. Indeed it is the case of petitioner that he has filed a suit being O.S.No.99 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,29,700/-. Therefore the second respondent can take all pleas regarding blank promissory notes and alleged forged documents in the suit. It is well settled that a dispute in the realm of civil law may also involve the commission of crime but when the civil dispute is pending between the parties, the Police should be very cautious in registering the crime. In G.Sagar Suri v State of U.P.[6], the Supreme Court held that if a dispute is essentially of a civil nature, it cannot be given clothe of criminal offence and that the criminal proceedings are not shortcut of other remedies available under law. I n Indian Oil Corpn v NEPC India Ltd.[7], the Supreme Court while holding that even if dispute arose out of breach of contract, which can be agitated by availing remedy under civil law, such remedy under criminal law is barred, made the following observations. 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 protects the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown 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 through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In view the above, if the investigation is allowed in this case, it would certainly result in miscarriage of justice besides abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that it is a fit case where investigation is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.147 of 2008 of P.S. Manuguru, Khammam District, is quashed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 15, 2010. YS [1] AIR 2003 SC 1069(1) [2] (2007) 12 SCC 1 [3] (2007) 14 SCC 776 [4] AIR 2008 SC 1683 (1) [5] 2008 CRI.L.J. 3953 [6] (2000) 2 SCC 636 [7] (2006) 6 SCC 736