The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to call for the records pertain to the c.c No 613 of 2018 on the file of the special Judicial First class Magistrate For Trail of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act - cum - lll Addl, JR. civil Judge at sanga Reddy, and quash the same as abuse of process of law. l.A. NO: 2OF 2022 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of trail of c c No.613 OF 2018 on the file of the Special Judicial First class Magistrate Frrr Trail of cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act - cum - III Addr. i l. civil Judge at sanga Reddy, including personal appearance of the petitioners This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perus i rg the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminat Petition and upon hearing the rguments of Mr. G L NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate for the petitioners arrr Mrs. MADHAVI, the Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Res g cndent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2_ The Court macie the foliowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.l1052 of 2O22 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.l and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C No.613 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of Cases under Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-lll Additional Junior Civil Judge at Sangareddy, for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 425 of the lndran Penal Code, '1860 (for short 'lPC').

2. Heard Mr. G,L.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 -State. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in bi-ief, is that the petitioner- accused No.1 has advanced a hand loan of Rs.70,000i- to LW-2t A.Jaya Pradha, rryho is the wife of the de facta complainant. At the time of availing the hand loan, LW-2 handed over the petitioner- accused No.1 a blank promisscry note, a blank bond paper and blank cheques duly signed by herself and her husband/de facfo comp{ainant to the petitioner-accused No.1 towards security. 2 ^i^-^r..-- Subsequently, LW-2 repaid the entire loan a r ount. However, when she ruqr."*'to return ttre Ofant proni sory note, blank bond paper and blank cheques, the petitio -r :r_accused No.1 ciodged the matter on one pretext or the rther Later, on 11.05.2016, when the de facto complainant vs ted his Bank to withdraw amounts for his personal needs, he c;.ne to know that the petitioner-accused No.1 has transferred the : mounts from his arcount to his relatives accounts, without h i knowledge or consent. Fuiihermore, the petitioner_accused I lo_ 1 f orged the ,v,rdlurc 01 Lw_Z on the blank promissory notr, falsely claiming fhat Rs.5,50,000/- is to be paid by LIt_2 to the pe tihonei-_accused No.2, and subsequenfly a legal notiee was recei ed by L,fr/_2 on 18 05.2016 basing on the forged promissory note. 4. Basing on the private complaint filed tr, lhe de facto complainant, the lea-ned Magistrate has referred re same to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) : Cr p.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed charrl, , sheet against the petitioners, the same was taken cognizance ar J numbered as C C No.613 of 2019 for the aforesaid offenc,es. b le Submrssions m 5 5.1. The petitioner-accused No.2 has fited a civ r suit seeking recovery of money against LW_2 vide O-S-No. 11, of 2016 on ortf( petitioners 3

24.06.2016. As a counterblast to the aforesaid civil suit, the present c.omplaint was foisted by the de facto complainant against the petitioners on 14.07.2016 with all false allegations, colouring the civil dispute into a criminal offence, with the sole intention of evading repayment of the loan arnount due to the petitioners. Subsequently, the aforesaid suit was decreed in favour of the petitioners. There are no specific allegations against the petitioners; the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are not made out and as the civil suit itself was decreed in favour of the petitioners, the present criminal complaint is liable to be quashed.

5.2. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra v. Sfate of lJttarakhandl and Randheer Singh v. State of lJ.P.2. The purport of these judgments is that the machinery of criminal law cannot be employed as a tool to resolve civil disputes. Although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, the High Court must nonetheless not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings which are, in substance, civil in nature, but have been disguised as criminal offences. Where an adequate civil remedy is available 'lzot s1 r r scc oz3 ' 1zozr1 r+ scc oze 4 and has been availed of, the High Court ;hould prompfly intervene to quash such criminal proceedings r prevent misuse and abuse of the judicial process.

5.3. Learned counsel also relied on the judgn rent of Sfafe of Haryana and others v. CH.Bhajan Lal and o,hers3, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court hetd as follows: ":; "r"h ".,-. _da .nai ;;;; iiZi.' liZ,i,rur" ..The following caleoories of,. cases can be s t ted by wav at t ustration wherein the ertraordinary po;;; ,rd.; ; iirc" zza o, m" tnheren! pau,ers under sectnn 462';i.6 ;;;i"- !)lJi"i""o ny tn, y:!l c*,t either to prevent ah.use..l nZ iii"J",, |f,iry cout o, olhetwise lo secure the ends o! il*i(yl ,hrtr,^h ;r : ., ..^, ; " "l i";.ff ; ;' ;{' i i u-, ; ;, i,:,, ;, :,i r: ;;;i i :: ; t o t a y d o w n, n y p, irJ "'l :' and tn{lexiblc Etifl4li11es or rioirj fonn,,t^o ;-^;;':: " tisr ot myad kinds of cases ;i;;; p;;.;";;i r1;"::ri::::J"; (1) Where the attegations made in the First lnfofi.t ftion Repari or t:1: ca_m!!nt, even if they are taken at their I rce vatue and :::^,fo in their entirety- ",, onence or make out a case againf d; ;;;"";;; (2) the a egations in the First lnformation ]lt pod and other .Wlrcre 'o,uto"u ._any, acumpanying the F.t.R. do ,2, :::!n:,. if justifying an investbation by poti;, oif-icers unoer " ?Sn:abt:_?f.{ence, section ts6(1) of the Cde except urider ,;';d-;, , r a"uag,st,ate within the purview of Section 1SS(2) of the CoOi (^3) _Yr.: ih.e uncontroveded. allegations made t t the FtR or comptainr and the eviderrce aolecje;in;;;ppo;ii ti , iJle oo not ii,:,:""""r:Z1,*r*ission of any offenci "r;;;i"";;: , ll,Ju ,sr,,.r (4) Where, lhe a egations in tle FIR b.not constitutr a cognizable ottence but conslilute onlv a nr ,:_l:,-r,:g;;;;;;;L;,;::,#f :!-":l::ETi,i,^;::,:il:tzi contemptated under Section t ss1z1 oriie'itii ' v, I v'|dvlr (5) where the afiegations made..in rhe FrR or comprainr re so absurd and inhetcn,y improbabte on ne usii'ii'*;;:;i;;,', ,JJ.i, ourro, ' issz scc lcr4lzo 5 can ever reach a just d)nclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the ptovisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the gievance of the aggrbved pafty; - (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.

5.4. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submifted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and the truth or otherwise of the allegations levelled against them can only be known after conducting full-fledged trial before the trial Court. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. On a perusal of the FIR and the charge sheet, it reveals that even when the allegations against the petitioners are taken in entirety, there are no specific or distinct allegations against them. Though the complaint attributes forgery and fabrication of promissory note and transfer of amounts by the petitioner- accused No.1 without the knowledge of de facto complainant, the matter has been improperly framed by the de facto complainant 6 with a criminal hue, thereby unjusfly aftr,i: rting a criminal character to what !s essentially a civildispute. B. Though the de facto complainant came o know tha{ the petitioner-accused No.1 has transferred the rrr rounts from his account to his relatives accounts, without h i: knowledge or consent on .l 1.05.2016 and despite receiving le,l rl notice by LW_ 2 issueC by: the petitioner_aecused No.2 on 8.05.2016, the present complaint was lodged by the de f; t [o complainant against the petitioners on 14.07.2O16 i.e.. subse < uent te filing cf civil suit by the petiticner_accused FJc.2 ag i inst LW-2 on 24.06.2016. lt appears that the present case is f ecl against the petitioners by the r/e faclo complainant as a cour :re!. btast to the civil suit filed by the petitioner_accused No.2 agairs t LW-2. 9. Subsequen,y, the triai Court, after hearing I ,oth sides and perusing the material on record, has decreed. th_. civil suil vide O.S.No.199 of 2016 on 09.01.2023 directing I te defendant therein i.e., LW-2 herein, who is the wife of de fac{ r complainant to pay Rs.7,12,933/_ together with interest @ 12o/o )er annum on principal amount of Rs,5,50,000/_ from the dqte c r suit, tilt the date of decree and fhereafter @ 60/o per innrr., on principal amount from the date of decree, till the date of r alization. As seen from the judgment. dated 09.01.2023, it is re, )r.ded by the ( .-- (- 7 learned Magistrate that the defendant therein i.e., LW_2 herein has not made any efforts to adduce rebuttal evidence. None of the witnesses examined in the present C.C. were produced on behalf of LW-2 in the civil suit to prove that the documents were forged or fabricated and not genuine. Moreover, if genuinely the signatures of LW-2 were forged, she ought to have filed an application in the civil suit to refer the signatures in dispute to an expert for opinion. \ '10. ln the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.p.C., both the de facto complainant and LW_2 admitted to have given a blank promissory note, a blank bond paper and blank cheques duly signed by them to petitioner-accused No.1 as security for the hand loan. Since the de facto complainant and LW_2 have themselves acknowledged signing the said promissory note and cheque, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner forged their signatures

11. For the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners_accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. I I 8

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is r lowed and the proceedings against the petitioners-accused I los. i and 2 in C.C.No.613 of 2018 on the file of the learneci Special Judicial First Class Magistrate for Trial of Cases rr rder Telangana Prohibition and Excise Act-cum-lll Additional Jurr, tr Civil Judge at Sangareddy, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sh; I stand closed. //TRUE COPY// i SD/ K. BHAVANI SWATIY fl; ;rsTANT REG|STRAR SECTION OFFICER i i I I i To, 1 J 4 5 First class Masistrat., s")u,= rdlr or Medak Dist. ffi,i3lA':5:rJudicial The Station House Officer Rarnachandrapuram police ;tation, Medak Dist lwo CCs to the pubtic prosecutor Hrgn Court at Hldt r bad. (OUT) one cc to Mr G r NARAStMia RA,o, Iwo CD Copies "AJ;#i.rfoI j i"f 1fr HIGH COURT DATED: 31107l2OZs ORDER CRLP.No.11052 ot 2022 r ' /; tJ' c (i -,-- \,,;\\ . : _.- ..=:_-_:.- 1il i S; q ,- ::r., ' (,.. ti lE ili[ 26p \ I '- - - -i' ' )' Accordingly, this Criminal petition is Allrwed. (+.