The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that I the circumstances stated in the lVlemotandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitiorr. -ne High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceeding in C C Nc 797 of 2022 on lhe file of the lll Additronal Judicial Magistrate of First Class (,;um - lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khammam for the offence punishable Lrrrler Section 120(B), 420, 309, 467 and 506 of lPC, including the appearance of t1e Petitroners till the disposal of the main quash petition in the interest of .justice This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l/1enrorandum of Grounds of Crimina Petrtion and upon hearing the argutrre rts of tt/l/s. PILLIX LAW FlRlvl. Advocate for the Petitioners and Smt. S tMADHAVI. the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent \ c 1 and Mr MV. HANUIVIANTHA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADISRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.11908 OF 2023 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners, who are arrayed as the accused Nos '1 to 6, seeking to quash the crrminal proceedings initiated in C C.No.797 of 2022 vide impugned cognizance order dated 27.04.2022 passed in Criminal lVliscellaneous Petition No.59 of 2022 in Crime No.159 of 2019 on the file of the learned lll Additional Judicial [\Iagistrate of First Class-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam

02. Heard Sri Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Pillix Law Firm, appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Smt.S.Mladhavr, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No 'l ; and Sri l\4.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent No 2 Perused the record 03(a). ln brief, the case of the complainant-respondent No.2 is that she is a practicing Advocate and her husband 2 runs a book stall and bookbinding businesr; and they are blessed with three children. The complarnant's family consists of her father Pulipati Narisimha Fi;ro, her mother Bharathi, elder brother Pulipati Prasad r e the petitioner- accused No 1, and younger sister Khaja Krishr:a Veni, who is settled in the United States. The complarnant :rnd ier family members jointly own certain prope(ies situate d at Thanikella Revenue Village of Chinthakani li/landal and (esavapuram Village of Kusumanchi lVlandal 03(b) ln the year 'l 997, the petitioner,;rccirsed No 1 initiated a series of educational societies vr:h the active participation and joint investment of family rrembers The said societies include: Sri Sri China .Jt:t:yar Swamy Educational Society, Sri Balaji Educatrona Society, Sri Sairam Educational Society, Sri Sai Durga Ealaji Health & Educational Welfare Society, Poulomi Educatir:nal Society, Hyderabad, wherein the complainant, her parents, her sister, and other extended relatives were designatt:d as office bearers in various capacities including Presider-rt, Secretary, Treasurer, Joint Secretary, and Executive lVlembers i/ 3 03(c). lt is alleged that the petitioner-accused No 1 assumed unilateral control over all the said educational institutions and he failed to convene general body meetings, did not present or maintain transparent accounts, and misappropriated society funds Further, he was alleged to have diverted the profits from these jointly invested institutions for the purchase of properties in the names of his wife and children, without the knowledge or consent of the other stakeholders 03(d). lt is further alleged that under the pretext of processing salary payments for employees of the societies, the petitioner-accused No..1 procured blank cheques bearing signatures from the complainant and other family members These cheques were later misused, and false cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act were instituted against the complainant and her family in various states across lndia 03(e). Further, it is alleged that the petitioner-accused No.1 forged the signatures of the complainant and her family 4 members and falsely submitted notarised do:uments before the Registrar of Societies, Hyderabad, p irrporting their voluntary resignation from various posts held n the societies. The forged documents were later verified bv Trr*n aub., Hyderabad, and a forensic report date,c 14 OB 2Ol4 confirmed that the signatures were not genu ne. Based on these allegations, the complainant lo<lqed crrminal complaints before Khammam lll Town Police f)tation which rs presently under adludication before the lll AdrJr:ional Judicial First Class l,/agistrate, Khammam, Medipall,v Folice Station, Hyderabad pending before the lll Additionzrl tVletropolitan lVlagistrate, L B. Nagar, Hyderabad. 03(f) It is further alleged that the peti roner-accused No 1, upon being questioned regardir-g f nancial transparency and governance, distanced hinrs;elf from the complainant and her family and, tn retaliatirrn, frled false criminal cases, includrng cases under the Scir,:rluls6 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocrties) Act lpC provisions and multiple Section 138 Negotiabe lnstruments Act cases across different jurisdictions. Aggrieved by the \; ,a/' .a 5 continued harassment and misuse of legal process, the complainant filed private complaint seeking initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings against the accused persons including the petitioners

04. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos.'1 to 6, have no involvement whatsoever in the alleged offences. The petitioners are embroiled in civil disputes relatrng to immovable property with respondent No 2 lt is further submitted that the respondent No 2 had instituted multiple civil suits claiming property rights, all of which were dismissed by the competent Civil Courts. Upon institution of the present private complaint by the respondent No.2, the same was referred to the police for enquiry. After conducting due enquiry, the Police referred the case as 'false' under C No.426lPerlACP-T12021dated 07.09.2021 and filed a final report to that effect on 30 09.202'l . However, based on a protest petition filed belatedly by the respondent No.2 tn month of February 2022 which is five months after submission of the final report, the learned Nlagistrate took \' .4{ti8 kit . \ 6 cognizance and issued summons to the ac<;,.sed persons, including the petitioners vide impugned docl et order dated 27 04 2022 without assigning any reasons is submitted that the entire dispute is civil in nature and that the respondent No.2 has made a deliberate att()rnpt to grve a crrminal colour to what is essentially a civil dis pute, thereby abusing the process of law. Hence, the learned Senror Counsel prays that the impugned cognizan<;e: order dated

27.04.2022 and the consequential proceeJ ngs in C.C No.797 ot 2022 be quashed insofar as they ltertain to the petitioners herein. 05 On the other hand, learned Al;s;istant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri [t/l.V Hanumantha Rao, learned ccunsel for the respondent No 2 contended that there is rro illegality or irregularity in the impugned cognizance order prassed by the learned trial Court and there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examrned by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedingri against the .r. 7 petitioners at this juncture and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon consideration of the submissrons advanced by both sides, it is evident from the record that the complainant and the petitioners, arrayed as Accused Nos l to 6, are members of the same family and that there exist property disputes among them lt is not in dispute that several criminal cases, including those under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments Act, are pending between the parties ln the present private complaint, the allegations pertain to incidents said to have occurred during different years. However, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the complaint, the police referred the matter as'false' and filed a final report to that effect dated 30 09 2021

07. A careful perusal of the contents of the complaint reveals that the dispute essentially pertains to business transactions. The final report was filed on 30.09 2021 and the protest petition was filed by the complainant in the month 8 '\) \r of February, 2022 lt is also pertinent to note hat there rs an. unexplained and inordinate delay of around four months in filing the protest petition. which casts a serioLts doubt on the genuineness and veracity of the allegations of the respondent No.2 08 ln view of the facts and circum;tances of the case, it is relevant to extract the cognizanc,l docket order passed by the learned lVlagistrate, which reads; ;as follows "Heard Reasons sallsfled Prima facie alleoations against accused are satisfied. The Ofiir,e is directed to register the C.C. and rssue sr/i.r/nons to the accused Call on 30 06 2023." 09 Upon a careful scrutiny of the r;aid impugned order. it is evident that the learned N/a3istrate took cognizance against the petitioners-accusecl Nos.1 to 6 without assigning any independent, prop()r, or cogent reasons for doing so lt is further to be rroted that the impugned order does not even specify the r<:levant penal provisions allegedly attracted, nor does it mertion the serial numbers or specific roles of the accused perrions Such a ,.':' I ...,* I cryptic and non-speaking order, passed at the stage of taking cognizance, fails to reflect due application of judicial mind 10 lt is a well-settled principle of law that it is the bounden duty of the l\4agistrate to apply his judicial mind and record satisfaction as to whether the allegations made in the complaint, on their face, constitute the essential ingredients of the offences alleged. The act of taking cognizance and summoning an accused in a criminal proceeding is a matter of serious consequence and cannot be undertaken in a routine or mechanical manner. The criminal law machinery should not be set in motion casually or without proper scrutiny. The order taking cognizance and issuing process must reflect due application of judicial mind not only to the factual matrix but also to the legal provisions applicable to the case. Failure to comply with such mandatory procedural safeguards renders the cognizance order legally unsustainable and vitiates the process.

11. lt is a settled position of law that criminal proceedings are not to be used as a shortcut to setfle civil 10 claims or disputes for which alternate remedie,s exist under the law. The initiation of criminal prosecutirtrr has serious consequences for the accused, and therefore ltefore issuing process, the criminal coud must apply jud cial mind and exercise caution

12. Referring to the growing tenderr,:v in business circles to convert purely civil disputes tnto crinl ral cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in lndian Oil Corporation v. NEPC lndia Ltd.,7 it was held at Paragraph No.'l 3 that: "13. While on this issue. l1 is necessary Lo take notice of a growing tendency ln buslness circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal czses. fhls ls obviously on account of a prey'6lst1t impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the rnteresfs of lenders/creditors. Such a tendertcy is seen in several family disputes also, lear.lt,tg to irretrievable break down of marriages/f a rnilies. There is also an impression that if a person :ould somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecdtion, there is a likelihood of imminent settlemertt Any effort to settle civil dispules and claims, trt,lt u;h do not involve any criminal offence, by itltl.tlying pressure though criminal prosecution shctu'd be de prec ated a n d d i scou raged. " ' lzoooy o scc zao 11 '1 3 Further, in the case of G.Sagar Suri v- Sfafe of lJttar Pradesh2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Paragraph No.8 it was held that: "8. Jurisdiction under Secllon 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. ln exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. lt is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before rssurng process a criminal couft has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused il ls a serious matter. This Court has laid ceftain pinciples on lhe basls of which High Couri is to exercise its lurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, Jurisdiction- under this Secfion has lo be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or othenaise to secure the ends of justice."

14. ln Sfate of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lat and others3 the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process '? 1zooo1 z scc oao " 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335 \ j 12 of any Coutt or othenuise to secure the ertds of justice, though it may not be posslb/e to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufflctently channelised and inflexible guide myriad ki,tds of cases vrherein suclt power should be exer'r,. ?d (l) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Repoft or the complaint, everr if they are taken at their face value and acceptec ,n their entirety do not prima facie constitute any cflence or make out a case against the accused,' (!) where the allegations in the First lnforttation Repoft and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not dlsc/ose a cognizable o'fence justifying an investigation by police officer -c ,nder Section 156(1) of the Code except under itn order of a lttlagistrate within the purvtew of :;ection 155(2) ofthe Code; (!) where the uncontrovefted allegations rr,aCe in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not drsckrr;e lhe commission of any offence and make out ,l case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the FIR tlc. not constitute a cognizable offence but constitu'e only a non-cognizable offence, no investigattc,n ts permitted by a police officer without an ord--r of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code, (!) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inh=rently improbable on the basls of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there ' ,./"t _=*i&{ 13 is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused: (9) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under whrch a criminal proceedrng is instituted) to the tnstitution and continuance of the proceedrngs and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved pafty; Q) 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 spife him due to private and personal grudge. '

15. ln view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has failed to discharge the judicial obligation of assessing whether the allegations made in the complaint, on a prima facie evaluation, constitute the commission of the offences alleged. lt further appears that the present criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fides and have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to harass the accused persons, including the present petitioners, and to wreak vengeance owing to private and 14 .,n i personal animosity. This Court cannot ignc,r,: the growing trend of converting purely crvit disputes into criminal proceedings, particularly in business and farnily disputes Such misuse of the criminal lustice system apoears to stem from the perception that civil remedres are tiine-consuming and insufficiently effective, thereby promp lrg parties to invoke criminal law as a means of exertirrgl pressure to secure private settlements This practice r rdermines the sanctity of criminal law. The invocatrc n of criminal prosecution as a tool for coercive recovery or for settling personal scores in matters devoid of any crinrir ality is wholly impermissible and must be strongly de,crecated and discouraged. As such, the present case squarr-.ly falls within the parameters of Point No 7 of the guidelines t:nunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal,s rlecision cited supra. 16 Furthermore, the learned l\4i11;istrate has committed a serious procedural irregular.ity in taking cognizance without recording any prima fa<;re findings or assigning cogent and independent reasons C:onsequenfly, 15 the impugned cognrzance docket order dated 27.O4.2022 passed in Criminal [r/liscellaneous petition No.5g of 2022 in Crime No 159 of 2019 in C.C.No,797 of 2O2Z by the learned lll Additional Judicial lVlagistrate of First Class-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, is held to be legally unsustainable, patently erroneous, and constitutes a manifest abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the said ) ) order is hereby set aside and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are declared to be gross abuse of the process of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

17. Accordingly, the Crlminal Petition rs allowed. The impugned cognizance docket order dated 27.04.2022, passed in Criminal [i/liscellaneous Petition No.59 of 2022 in Crime No.159 of 2019 in C C No 797 of 2022 by the learned lll Additional Judicial IVlagistrate of First Class-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khammam, is hereby set aside. Consequently, all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are declared to be a gross abuse of the process of law and are hereby quashed and set aside 16 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY ASSr{;TtNT REGISTRAR r\- '' 1, $ebrroru oFFtcER I To,

1. The lll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class - Cum - lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Khamrnam

2. The Station House Officer, lll Town Police Station, Kha nmam District. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the S:ate of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to lvl/s. PILLIX LAW FIRM Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Mr. IUV. HANUIUANTHA RAO, Advocate ,\dvocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies I I I , I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0110812025 ORDER CRLP.No.11908 of 2O23 .l-Ai ,-) 'i ?$15 i.\ l, :. I 2 5 ,. , '),. It.' Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is Allowed. 1 r0 I