Medepalli Ram Mohan Rao v. Pavuluri Sri Ram Chowdari

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.27 of 2016 ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.423 of 2015 on the file of Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban District, registered under Section 420 and 506 IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner is the sole accused and the first respondent is the de facto complainant. The first respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from the petitioner in the year 2010 and executed an agreement of salecum-General Power of Attorney in respect of the property in dispute. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner herein had obtained the GPA - cum - sale agreement with an ulterior motive to deceive the first respondent. It is further alleged that the petitioner executed a sham and nominal document in favour of his wife in respect of the property in dispute. It is further alleged that the petitioner threatened the first respondent with dire consequences. Whether the petitioner has committed the alleged offence or not will come to light during the course of investigation. If this Court expresses any opinion touching the merits of the main case, the same may cause prejudice to one of the parties to the proceedings. Admittedly, civil suits are pending between the parties.

It is needless to say that the court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in order to quash the criminal proceedings at the initial stage of investigation. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain the truthfulness, genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a settled principle of law that the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation. If the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, then this court can quash the proceedings in order to prevent abuse of process of court thereby to secure the ends of justice.

I have carefully perused the material available on record in order to ascertain whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable thereby to quash the proceedings. The material available on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.KAPOOR v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1], STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL[2], V.Y.JOSE V STATE OF GURAJAT[3] AND TEEJA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN[4], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the concerned Station House Officer may be directed not to arrest the

petitioner till completion of investigation.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Station House Officer, Pattabhipuram Police Station, Guntur Urban District, is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/accused in Crime No.423 of 2015 till completion of investigation.

With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

_____________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date:05.01.2016 Rns [1] AIR 1960 SC 866 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604

[3] (2009) 3 SCC 78 [4] 2015 (1) ACR 564 (SC)