P. Pushavathi and Others vs R. Gangireddy Ramana Reddy and Another

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Narasimha Rao, the learned Counsel representing Sri B. Somasekhar, the learned Counsel representing petitioners-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, Sri Sreenivasa Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent No. 1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

The criminal petition is filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 187 of 2001 on the file of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur.

The first respondent filed a private complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that A1 and the present petitioners had committed the offences under Sections 406, 420 & 463 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The relationship between A1 and the present petitioners is not in serious dispute. The first petitioner-A2 is the wife of A1, 6th accused is the friend of the other accused and the other accused A3 and A4 are the sons of A1, The specific case of first respondent complainant is that in pursuance of the representation made that the first accuse is having a good and marketable title, a registered sale deed, dated 17-10-1998 was entered into. It is Also stated that the first accused suppressed the pendency of the proceedings in A.T.C. No. 44 of 1984 on the file of the Principal Munsif Magistrate, Guntur and Also O. S. No. 422 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Guntur.

In Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Others Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Others, , the Apex Court while dealing with the exercise of inherent powers observed as herein:

Section 482 does not confer any new powers on the High Court. If only saves the inherent power which the Court, possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three circumstances under which the inherent, jurisdiction may be exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of Court, and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of inherent Jurisdiction. No legislative enactment dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law. That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the High Courts. all Courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on the principle ''quando lex Aliquid Alicui concedit, concedere videfur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest'' (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the Court does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which Alone Courts exist. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the Court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the Court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers Court would be justified to quash any proceedings if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the Court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.

As can be seen from the averments made in the complaint, the only allegation made as against the petitioners in the present criminal petition is that they also made representations relating to the clear and correctable title of A1. Evidently, in view of the close relationship between these parties, this complaint had been thought of as against these petitioners also. It may be that A1 might have suppressed the pendency of a suit on the strength of a mortgage said to have been filed by Hymavathi in O. S. No. 422 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge and another AT C. No. 44 of 1984. These parties are not parties to those litigations. Merely because they are closely related to accused, it cannot be said that prima facie, the allegations made as against them relating to the representation would constitute any of the offences, which are specified in the complaint. this Court is thoroughly satisfied that there are no bona fides in filing a private complaint against the family members. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.

Criminal petition is accordingly allowed.