P. Purnachandra Rao & Ors. vs The State Of Telangana & Anr.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 1199 of 2023, registered by Meerpet Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 7 in the aforesaid Crime and are facing accusations for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 506, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

I have heard Ms. C. Jyotsna Devi, learned counsel, representing Mr. D. Sudharshan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Mr. Jakka Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant

The petitioners are father, mother, sisters, brothers-in-law and parental uncle of the deceased husband of the 2^nd respondent/complainant.

The prosecution case in brief is that, the marriage between the 2^nd respondent/complainant and her husband was solemnized on 25.07.2012. After their marriage, the couple initially resided at Bengaluru and subsequently shifted to Bahrain in the Arabian Gulf, where the deceased was employed for approximately eight years. According to the 2^nd respondent/complainant, during the deceased's employment abroad, he transferred substantial amounts of money and entrusted gold ornaments to petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 7 for the purpose of purchasing agricultural lands and house plots in the names of himself and the 2^nd respondent. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 initially received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and 10 tulas of gold for the purchase of agricultural land and, instead of acquiring the property in the names of the deceased and the 2^nd respondent, had the property registered in his own name. Thereafter, during the period from 2012 to 2022, the husband of the 2^nd respondent/complainant allegedly transferred amounts of Rs.78,74,000/- Rs.27,81,000/- and Rs.38,51,000/- to petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 7, respectively, besides entrusting 225 grams of gold ornaments to petitioner No.7 for the purpose of acquiring immovable properties.

It is further alleged that, contrary to the purpose for which the amounts and gold ornaments were entrusted, the petitioners purchased properties either in their own names or in the names of their relatives, particularly petitioner No.5, and thereby dishonestly misappropriated the entrusted funds and gold. Despite repeated demands, the petitioners allegedly refused either to transfer the properties in favour of the deceased and the 2^nd respondent or to otherwise account for and return the entrusted amounts and gold. It is also alleged that petitioner No.7 misbehaved with the 2^nd respondent/complainant at Mangalagiri, while petitioner No.2 abused her after the death of her husband. According to the 2^nd respondent/complainant, the deceased, upon realizing that he had been cheated by his family members, committed suicide in Bahrain on 05.08.2022. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, pursuant to which a crime came to be registered. Aggrieved by the registration of the crime and the consequential proceedings, the petitioners have filed the present Criminal Petition seeking quashment of the same.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the dispute raised in the complaint is essentially civil in nature and relates to the ownership and entitlement in respect of immovable properties, which, according to the petitioners, has been given a criminal colour merely to exert pressure upon them. It is submitted that the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, as there is no specific and legally sustainable allegation of entrustment, dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction, criminal misappropriation, or inducement. Learned counsel further submits that Section 409 IPC is wholly inapplicable, as none of the petitioners falls within the categories of persons specified therein, namely, a public servant, banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent. It is further contended that the alleged transactions span the period from 2012 to 2022, whereas the complaint was lodged only after the death of the deceased and is, therefore, highly belated and an afterthought. Learned counsel also submits that the allegations against the petitioners are vague, omnibus and devoid of specific overt acts or clearly attributed individual roles. According to him, continuation of the criminal proceedings, in the absence of the foundational ingredients of the alleged offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Anjuri Kumari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7570, wherein the Delhi High Court reiterated that the statutory remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC, followed by recourse to Section 156(3) CrPC, ought ordinarily to be pursued in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks interference by this Court and quashing of the crime and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners.

Per contra learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition and contended that the complaint, read with the material placed on record, prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation. It is submitted that the deceased entrusted substantial amounts of money and gold ornaments to petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 7 for the specific purpose of purchasing immovable properties in the names of himself and the 2^nd respondent. However, the petitioners allegedly purchased the properties in their own names or in the names of their relatives and thereby dishonestly misappropriated the entrusted funds and gold. According to the learned counsel, these allegations prima facie attract the offences of cheating and criminal misappropriation.

It is further pleaded that the complaint contains specific particulars concerning the transfer of funds, entrustment of gold ornaments, acquisition of properties and the subsequent refusal by the petitioners to transfer the properties or return the money despite repeated demands. These allegations, according to the learned counsel, give rise to disputed questions of fact, which require a full-fledged investigation and cannot appropriately be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint, the sworn statements and the material placed before the Court, rightly exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC by directing registration and investigation of the case, as the complaint disclosed a prima facie case. It is also submitted that the investigation is presently at a nascent stage and that the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought not to be exercised at this stage, so as to stifle a legitimate investigation. Learned counsel, therefore, prays for dismissal of the Criminal Petition and for permitting the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant placed reliance on Anurag Bhatnagar and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 742, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, held that although a complainant should ordinarily exhaust the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC before invoking Section 156(3) CrPC, non-compliance with the said requirement constitutes a procedural irregularity and not a jurisdictional defect. It was further submitted that interference under Section 482 CrPC is warranted only in exceptional circumstances. Reliance was also placed on M/s. Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.680 of 2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. At the stage of investigation, the Court ought not to conduct a mini-trial or undertake an assessment of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations. On the strength of these principles, learned counsel submits that, where the complaint and the accompanying material disclose a prima facie cognizable offence and the factual allegations require investigation, the proceedings ought not to be quashed merely because the accused dispute the allegations or assert that the underlying controversy is civil in nature.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.

The core allegation is that the deceased entrusted substantial amounts of money and gold ornaments to petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 7 for the purpose of purchasing immovable properties in the names of himself and the 2^nd respondent. It is alleged that, contrary to the purpose, for which the amounts and gold ornaments were entrusted, the petitioners purchased the properties either in their own names or in the names of their relatives and, despite repeated demands, refused to transfer the properties in favour of the deceased and the 2^nd respondent.

Whether there was, in fact, any entrustment, whether the amounts and gold ornaments were entrusted specifically for acquisition of immovable properties for the benefit of the deceased and the 2^nd respondent; whether the petitioners acted with the requisite dishonest intention; and whether the properties were actually acquired out of the funds or assets allegedly entrusted to them, are all disputed questions of fact. Their determination would necessarily require consideration of oral and documentary evidence, including the circumstances surrounding the alleged transactions, the flow and utilisation of the funds, the alleged entrustment of gold ornaments and the acquisition and ownership of the properties. Such matters cannot appropriately be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, particularly when the investigation is yet to be completed, as the exercise of such jurisdiction does not contemplate appreciation of evidence or conducting a mini-trial.

The contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is well settled that the existence or availability of a civil remedy does not, by itself, bar criminal prosecution where the allegations, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. A transaction may, in a given case, give rise to both civil and criminal consequences, provided the ingredients of the alleged criminal offences are otherwise made out. In M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere fact that a dispute also gives rise to a civil remedy cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations disclose the commission of a criminal offence.

The petitioners' contentions regarding the alleged inapplicability of Section 409 IPC, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the alleged vagueness of the accusations primarily relate to the merits and evidentiary aspects of the prosecution case. At this stage, these contentions do not warrant a conclusive determination, particularly when the allegations require investigation and may have to be tested on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The complaint, however, contains specific allegations regarding the entrustment of substantial amounts of money and gold ornaments to petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 7, the alleged acquisition of properties in the names of petitioner No.5 and other relatives, and the subsequent refusal to honour the purpose for which the amounts and gold were allegedly entrusted. Whether these allegations are ultimately established is a matter for investigation and, if necessary, trial; they cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the threshold on the basis of the rival assertions of the parties.

The principles governing interference with criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation are well settled. In State of Haryana and Others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down illustrative categories of cases in which the extraordinary power of quashing may be exercised, while emphasizing that such power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and only in appropriate cases. These principles have been reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that, once an FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should not conduct a mini-trial or undertake an assessment of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations at the stage of investigation.

The challenge to the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is also not sustainable. In Anurag Bhatnagar and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another supra, following the principles laid down in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although the complainant should ordinarily exhaust the remedies available under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC before invoking Section 156(3) CrPC, non-exhaustion of such remedies constitutes a procedural irregularity and does not, by itself, render the order of the Magistrate without jurisdiction. The said principle was also reiterated in Anjuri Kumari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7570.

In the present case, the learned Magistrate, upon consideration of the complaint and the material placed before the Court, found sufficient basis to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The allegations contained in the complaint and the consequent FIR, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and raise factual issues which require investigation. In such circumstances, the order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the allegations contained in the complaint and the FIR, taken at their face value, prima facie disclose cognizable offences and raise disputed questions of fact which require investigation. The defence contentions advanced by the petitioners, including the alleged civil nature of the dispute, the absence of dishonest intention, the alleged delay in lodging the complaint, the applicability of Section 409 IPC and the alleged vagueness of the accusations, cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage without undertaking an impermissible appreciation of evidence. The case, therefore, does not fall within any of the illustrative categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal supra, so as to warrant exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the registration of the crime or the consequential criminal proceedings.

For the aforesaid, the Criminal Petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. The Investigating Agency shall be at liberty to proceed with and conclude the investigation strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, which are confined solely to the question of whether interference at the present stage under Section 482 CrPC is warranted.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.