B.Padm Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1170340
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-11-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
AppellantB.Padm
RespondentState of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by
Excerpt:
honourable sri justice s.ravi kumar criminal petition no.596 of201211-4-2014 b.padma.....petitioner. state of andhra pradesh, represented by its public prosecutor, high court of a.p., hyderabad and another.respondents. counsel for the petitioner: sri r.ramanjaneyulu. counsel for 1st respondent: public prosecutor. counsel for 2nd respondent: b.anjaiah head note: ?. cases referred: honourable sri justice s.ravi kumar criminal petition no.596 of2012order: this petition is filed to quash f.i.r. no.552 of 2011 of station house officer, meerpet, cyberabad.2. brief facts leading to this petition are as follows: second respondent herein filed a private complaint under section 200 cr.p.c. before ii metropolitan magistrate, cyberabad at l.b.nagar and the court forwarded the said complaint to station house officer, meerpet under section 156 (3) cr.p.c. for investigation and on that, concerned police registered it as crime no.552 of 2011 and issued f.i.r. aggrieved by the registration of f.i.r., a.3 filed this petition on the ground that averments in the complaint do not attract any of the offences referred in the complaint.3. heard both sides.4. advocate for petitioner submitted that the role of petitioner is only introducing the complainant to a.1, except that she had nothing to do with the transaction or the mortgage over the property. he further submitted that the petitioner is a close relative of complainant and as a known person, she has informed the complainant about the availability of plots at sri nilaya town ship, badangpet and there is no material attracting the offences under sections 420 and 406 i.p.c. against the petitioner and that she is falsely implicated. he further submitted that without verification of the correctness of the complainant averments, police mechanically directly registered f.i.r. and for these reasons, the f.i.r. has to be quashed.5. on the other hand, learned advocate for 2nd respondent submitted that before forwarding the complaint to police under section 156 (3) cr.p.c. , trial court after considering the material only passed that order and that order is not challenged by the petitioner and straight away asked for quashing the f.i.r. it is further submitted that only after satisfying prima facie, the trial court forwarded complaint for investigation and that there are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner with regard to the criminal breach of trust and also inducement attracting the offences of sections 420 and 406 i.p.c. he further submitted that these aspects have to be verified during investigation and there are no grounds to quash the f.i.r.6. now the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether f.i.r. can be quashed or not?.7. point: according to the complainant, he purchased property from sri nilaya constructions company on the advice of petitioner herein and that she had prior knowledge about the mortgage of this property to state bank of india, shamsheergunj branch. admittedly, complaint was originally filed before the ii metropolitan magistrate, cyberabad.8. when a private complaint is filed as per cr.p.c., magistrate has two options, first option is he can as well record the sworn statement of complainant and witnesses and consider whether there is any material to take cognizance of the offence, in which case, he has to follow the procedure under section 202 cr.p.c.9. second option is that he can forward the complaint to police under section 156 (3) cr.p.c. for investigation and keep the complaint pending till final report is filed by the police.10. in this case, learned magistrate forwarded complaint under section 156(3) cr.p.c. exercising the second option and the police has registered it as f.i.r.11. now the objection of the petitioner is that police without verification of correctness of the complaint averments straight away registered the f.i.r. and the same is incorrect, but the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because as per section 156 cr.p.c., only after registration of f.i.r., police will get the power of investigation. f.i.r. means only information with regard to commission of an offence and at that time, police would only verify whether complaint given discloses any commission of offence either under i.p.c. or under any other special statues.12. in this case, there are specific averments in the complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that she is employee of sri nilaya constructions company and as a relative of petitioner introduced a.1 as partner and owner of sri nilaya constructions company. it is also alleged in the complaint that petitioner herself introduced one prameela and inducted her as tenant for a house plot and the complainant entrusted the job of collecting rents to this petitioner and petitioner having collected the rents, has not paid back and thereby, committed breach of trust. it is also alleged in the complaint that this petitioner has prior knowledge about the mortgage of this property in favour of state bank of india, shamsheergunj branch.13. when such specific allegations are made, the contention of the petitioner that police registered f.i.r. without any material attracting the offences under sections 406 and 420 i.p.c. cannot be accepted. the correctness of these allegations would come to light only through investigation and at this stage, the correctness of these allegations cannot be decided.14. for these reasons, i am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the f.i.r. by exercising powers under section 482 cr.p.c. and the petition is liable to be dismissed.15. accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed.16. as a sequel to the disposal of this petition, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. ______________________ justice s.ravi kumar dated 11-4-2014
Judgment:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.596 OF201211-4-2014 B.Padma.....Petitioner. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI R.RAMANJANEYULU. Counsel for 1st respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. Counsel for 2nd respondent: B.ANJAIAH HEAD NOTE: ?. Cases referred: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.596 OF2012ORDER

: This petition is filed to quash F.I.R. No.552 of 2011 of Station House Officer, Meerpet, Cyberabad.

2. Brief facts leading to this petition are as follows: Second respondent herein filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and the court forwarded the said complaint to Station House Officer, Meerpet under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and on that, concerned police registered it as Crime No.552 of 2011 and issued F.I.R. Aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R., A.3 filed this petition on the ground that averments in the complaint do not attract any of the offences referred in the complaint.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Advocate for petitioner submitted that the role of petitioner is only introducing the complainant to A.1, except that she had nothing to do with the transaction or the mortgage over the property. He further submitted that the petitioner is a close relative of complainant and as a known person, she has informed the complainant about the availability of plots at Sri Nilaya Town Ship, Badangpet and there is no material attracting the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioner and that she is falsely implicated. He further submitted that without verification of the correctness of the complainant averments, police mechanically directly registered F.I.R. and for these reasons, the F.I.R. has to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate for 2nd respondent submitted that before forwarding the complaint to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. , trial court after considering the material only passed that order and that order is not challenged by the petitioner and straight away asked for quashing the F.I.R. It is further submitted that only after satisfying prima facie, the trial court forwarded complaint for investigation and that there are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner with regard to the criminal breach of trust and also inducement attracting the offences of Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. He further submitted that these aspects have to be verified during investigation and there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R.

6. Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this petition is whether F.I.R. can be quashed or not?.

7. POINT: According to the complainant, he purchased property from Sri Nilaya Constructions Company on the advice of petitioner herein and that she had prior knowledge about the mortgage of this property to State Bank of India, Shamsheergunj branch. Admittedly, complaint was originally filed before the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad.

8. When a private complaint is filed as per Cr.P.C., Magistrate has two options, First option is he can as well record the sworn statement of complainant and witnesses and consider whether there is any material to take cognizance of the offence, in which case, he has to follow the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

9. Second option is that he can forward the complaint to police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and keep the complaint pending till final report is filed by the police.

10. In this case, learned Magistrate forwarded complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. exercising the second option and the police has registered it as F.I.R.

11. Now the objection of the petitioner is that police without verification of correctness of the complaint averments straight away registered the F.I.R. and the same is incorrect, but the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted because as per Section 156 Cr.P.C., only after registration of F.I.R., police will get the power of investigation. F.I.R. means only information with regard to commission of an offence and at that time, police would only verify whether complaint given discloses any commission of offence either under I.P.C. or under any other special statues.

12. In this case, there are specific averments in the complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that she is employee of Sri Nilaya Constructions Company and as a relative of petitioner introduced A.1 as partner and owner of Sri Nilaya Constructions Company. It is also alleged in the complaint that petitioner herself introduced one Prameela and inducted her as tenant for a house plot and the complainant entrusted the job of collecting rents to this petitioner and petitioner having collected the rents, has not paid back and thereby, committed breach of trust. It is also alleged in the complaint that this petitioner has prior knowledge about the mortgage of this property in favour of State Bank of India, Shamsheergunj branch.

13. When such specific allegations are made, the contention of the petitioner that police registered F.I.R. without any material attracting the offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. cannot be accepted. The correctness of these allegations would come to light only through investigation and at this stage, the correctness of these allegations cannot be decided.

14. For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash the F.I.R. by exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.

16. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed. ______________________ JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 11-4-2014