THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1265 OF 2009 DATE:12.10.2011 BETWEEN KANNAN NARAYAN …PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP –THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME STATION, HYDERABAD, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & OTHERS. …RESPONDENTS. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1265 OF 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the F.I.R in Crime No:9 of 2009 for the offences under section 420, 406, 447 and 506 I.P.C of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the accused and the 3rd respondent herein is the defacto complainant in the above crime. On 3.3.2009, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay for a period of four Weeks and the same is being extended from time to time till today and the same is in force as on the date of disposal of this petition. The case of the petitioner is that he helped the defacto complainant by giving financial assistance to a tune of Rs.50 lakhs and the 2nd respondent executed a promissory note-cum-receipt to that effect and in that regard, the petitioner was allowed to collect the payment daily at Margadarsi Service Centre till the entire amount is repaid and in this connection, the petitioner was given possession of the Margadarsi Service Centre in the month of April, 2007 and he is conducting its business day to day. The 3rd respondent is the witness to the said promissory note-cum-receipt. After coming out of all the financial troubles, in order to avoid the repayment of the amount given by the petitioner, respondents-2 and 3 resorted to play tactics by way of filing frivolous, vexatious and malafide complaint with all false allegations. The averments in the complaint clearly go to show that when they are in troubles, the petitioner has helped them and all the averments in the F.I.R will not constitute any offence of criminal in nature. If really there was any occurrence of offence, there must be immediate complaint with the concerned police station. But, since the complainants are highly influential persons, they have approached the Commissioner of police directly and got registered the present F.I.R. It is his further case that the allegations in the F.I.R are bald in nature and there are no specific dates or incidents mentioned therein. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents-2 and 3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly, due to the financial problems, respondents-2 and 3 approached the petitioner for financial help and obtained Rs.50 lakhs under the pronote-cum-note and in that connection, they allowed the petitioner to run the petrol bunk in the name and style of Messrs. Margadarsi Service Centre, which stood in the name of the husband of the 2nd respondent and thereupon, the petitioner is conducting the business in the petrol bunk and that with a view to avoid the debt to be paid to the petitioner, respondents-2 and 3 have directly lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Police with baseless and frivolous allegations. It is further submitted that there are no particulars as to the specific allegations and date of occurrence and the report is given by using influence, only with a view to avoid the debt to be paid to the petitioner and therefore, the crime registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no dispute as to the transaction between the petitioner on one hand and respondents-2 and 3 on the other. However, the allegation is that the petitioner abused the respondents and hit them and also threatened them with dire consequences and these allegations are required to be investigated by the investigating agency and therefore, there is no abuse of process of law as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in these circumstances, there are no justifiable grounds to exercise the powers of this Court under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C and thereby, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-2 and 3 that the running of the Petrol bunk in question was handed to the petitioner as per the terms between him and respondents-2 and 3. But, as per the terms, the petitioner is not paying the dues to the financiers and he is also not allowing respondents-2 and 3 to exercise their right of collection of amount in the petrol bunk and whenever respondents-2 and 3 are approaching him, he is threatening them with dire consequences and he also abused and hit them and threatened them with dire consequences and therefore, the complaint lodged by respondents-2 and 3 is not based upon any malafide intention. In these circumstances, the investigation may be allowed to go on to elicit truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint and at this stage of the proceedings, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether there are justifiable grounds to quash the F.I.R in question. Before going into the merits of the case, it is relevant to go through the allegations made in the complaint, which has moved the law into motion by registering the F.I.R against the petitioner. The relevant portion of the complaint addressed to the Commissioner of Police, which is the basis for registering the F.IR against the petitioner, reads as under: “I am the Proprietor of M/s Margadarsi Service Center from February, 2007 after the demise of my husband in December 2006. While we held the dealership at the above mentioned location from the year 1977 in my late husband’s name. While during this period I have had some financial difficulties due to extreme losses in other investments and repayments became over due to financial institutions and also some financiers. Mr.Kannan Narayan approached us to help us out of the situation by promising to ensure all pending payments be paid to the financiers and with regard to financial institutions, he would ensure switching of collateral by enhancing the loan amount and regularizing all the over due payments. Based on his promise he regularized 20% of the over due amount to the financial institutions and in lieu of the same, he gave this as a temporary loan and he asked me and my son to give blank bond papers (Rs.10/- worth 10 bond papers signed by me and four Rs.50/- worth bond papers from my son) signed as security. As he was known to me for the past few years where financing was done to me and payments were made on this behalf and as the financial situation was grave, I and my son had given him the same. He then called a meeting with each of the financiers and told them that it is his responsibility to repay the over due amounts. He then said that a promissory note be given for an amount of Rs.50. lacs and to state that until repayment the first right to cash collection in the retail outlet will be his. While we explained to him that there was already blank stamp papers with him, why would he require the same. He said that the blank papers were for security and this is a promissory note for only Rs.50 lacs and as the total amount would be higher after repayment to other financiers he would keep that as security for that amount. We gave him the same as we believed him as he had already paid that amount. To our surprise for the past six months, he has not paid a single penny to our financiers and to the financial institutions and whenever we ask him please pay he say that once the loan comes he will pay. Over the past few Weeks we have been requesting the payment to the financiers be made immediately, Mr.Narayan Kannan is refusing to do so on some pretext or other. Recently, we pulled up Mr.Narayan Kannan, my son was abused badly and hit and threatened of dire consequences using the blank papers and writing the full assets of myself and my son and ensuring that no penny remains with us.” Now, the facts that remain undisputed are that there was a financial transaction between the petitioner and respondents-2 and 3 and in that regard, the petitioner has been allowed to run the petrol bunk in question, which is belonging to husband of respondent-2. In order to move the law into motion, a mere allegation is sufficient to register a crime and no specific particulars, which may be gone into by the investigating agency, are required to be given in the complaint. But, in some circumstances, with regard to the nature of allegations, the incidents must be specific to prove the allegations against the accused. Some times, the civil transactions used to be criminal actions, in which certainly, the aggrieved party can approach the police by way of lodging a complaint by bringing to the notice of the police as to the overt acts or the offence committed against the accused. In this case, the allegation is that the petitioner-accused appears to have lent some amount to respondents-2 and 3 as per the terms and conditions between him and respondents-2 and 3. In this regard, the allegation is that pursuant to the terms, the petitioner is not paying a single pie for the last six years, to the financiers of respondents-2 and 3 and therefore, for the past few Weeks, respondents-2 and 3 have been requesting him to make payments to their financiers immediately. But, the petitioner is refusing to do so on some pretext or the other. Recently, when respondents-2 and 3 questioned him, the son of the complainant was abused badly and hit and threatened with dire consequences using the blank papers and rightful assets of Respondents-2 and 3 in his name. At this stage, it is relevant to go through the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C which reads as under: “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Court, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Courts of otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” In the light of the provisions, it is to be examined as to whether there are any such circumstances warranting interference by this Court in order to prevent the abuse of process of the Court. Certain guidelines have been laid down by the Apex Court as to the quashing of the complaint in the judgment reported in STATE OF HARYANA VS. BAJAN LAL ([1]) wherein it is observed thus: “For the purpose of quashing the complaint it is necessary to consider whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinize the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegation are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing the complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before evidence is led in support of the complaint. For quashing the complaint by way of action at the threshold it is therefore necessary to consider whether on the fact of the allegations a criminal offence is constituted or not. A particular act may constitute both civil wrong as well as criminal wrong and merely because a civil remedy is also pursued, it does not render the criminal action impermissible.” In support of his contention that the allegations made in the complaint given by respondents-2 and 3, do not prima facie constitute any offence and thereby, the F.I.R in Cr.No:9 of 2009 for the offences under sections 420, 406, 447 and 506 I.P.C is liable to be quashed, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in KAILASHI BAI VS. AARTI ARYA AND ANOTHER ([2]) wherein it has been observed thus: “The scope of exercise of power under section 482 Cr.P.C and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) 335. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (1)where the allegations made in the F.I.R 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 F.I.R 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) Cr.P.C except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. (3)where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R 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 F.I.R 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 F.I.R or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no 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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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” Now, coming to the case on hand, it can be said that the entire case revolves around the penultimate paragraph of the complaint, which reads as under: “To our surprise for the past six months, he has not paid a single penny to our financiers and to the financial institutions and whenever we ask him please pay he say that once the loan comes he will pay. Over the past few Weeks we have been requesting the payment to the financiers be made immediately, Mr.Narayan Kannan is refusing to do so on some pretext or other. Recently, we pulled up Mr.Narayan Kannan, my son was abused badly and hit and threatened of dire consequences using the blank papers and writing the full assets of myself and my son and ensuring that no penny remains with us.” The above paragraph of the complaint petition makes it crystal clear that the dispute is with regard to the non payment of the amount to the financiers of respondents-2 and 3 and the said dispute is an out come of a financial transaction between the parties. Apart from that, the sentence “recently, we pulled up Mr.Narayan Kannan, my son was abused badly and hit and threatened of dire consequences using the blank papers and writing the full assets of myself and my son and ensuring that no penny remains with us”, does not indicate as to the time or hour or day or atleast the month when the alleged threatening took place and in these circumstances, it can easily be said that the said allegation, which is a bald one, appears to be an omnibus allegation made against the petitioner for the purpose of attracting the ingredients of a cognizable offence. Even if the entire allegations in the complaint petition are taken to be true as a whole, they do not even prima facie constitute any cognizable offence. Therefore, it can easily be inferred that the lodging of the complaint itself, is nothing but an out come of the financial transaction between the petitioner and respondents-2 and 3, which comes under the purview of purely civil in nature and in this background of the matter, the party has to seek its redressal elsewhere before the appropriate forum. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above decisions, in my considered opinion, the very approach of the defacto complainant by way of lodging the complaint basing on some financial transactions among them, amounts to abuse of process of the Courts and I feel it a fit case to exercise the powers of this Court under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in F.I.R.No:9 of 2009 dated 5.1.2009 of Central Crime Police Station, Hyderabad and consequently, the proceedings in F.I.R.No:9 of 2009 dated 5.1.2009 of Central Crime Police Station, Hyderabad are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in F.I.R.No:9 of 2009 dated 5.1.2009 of Central Crime Police Station, Hyderabad. No costs. ______________________ Justice G.Chandraiah. Gurc. Date:12.10.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO:1265 OF 2009 DATE:12.10.2011 [1] (1992) 1 SCC 335 [2] 2009 (2) ALD (CRL) 714 (SC)