Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Proceedings in Property Dispute Case: Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 31 July 2019
Citation: [Not Available in the provided text]
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a criminal case be dismissed simply because there are ongoing civil disputes between the same parties? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question in a case involving allegations of assault and property disputes. The court had to decide whether the High Court was correct in refusing to dismiss criminal proceedings initiated alongside a civil suit. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which a High Court can use its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Indira Banerjee, J.

Case Background

The appellants and the second respondent were close relatives involved in a property partition suit (OS No. 92 of 2012) initiated by the second appellant in the Additional District Judge Court, Narsapur, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. The second appellant had also filed a criminal complaint (Criminal Complaint No. 518 of 2012) against the second respondent and others alleging various offenses including forgery and cheating. Subsequently, the second respondent filed a criminal complaint (PRC No. 2 of 2018) against the appellants, alleging assault, property damage, and threats. The appellants argued that this later complaint was a retaliatory measure against their earlier criminal complaint.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed a petition (Criminal Petition No. 9225 of 2018) in the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) to quash the criminal proceedings (PRC No. 2 of 2018). They argued that the complaint was a counterblast to their earlier complaint and that civil disputes were pending. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the allegations in the complaint disclosed offenses under Sections 307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court noted that the complaint of the second appellant was filed in 2012, while the instant complaint was filed in 2015, rejecting the counterblast argument. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), which grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The appellants sought to invoke this section to quash the criminal proceedings. The alleged offenses were under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 427 (mischief causing damage), 447 (criminal trespass), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC): This section empowers the High Court to make orders to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with mischief causing damage.
• Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with criminal trespass.
• Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with criminal intimidation.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the criminal complaint filed against them was a counterblast to the criminal complaint (Criminal Complaint No. 518 of 2012) filed by the second appellant against the de facto complainant and others. They claimed that the allegations were false and arose from a property dispute.
• The appellants also contended that an earlier application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash a similar complaint (Criminal Petition No.13272 of 2014) had been allowed by the High Court.
• The Appellant No.1 contended that he was working as a lecturer at Hyderabad and was falsely implicated in the case.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The de facto complainant alleged that the appellants caused injuries to his body, attempted to hit him on the head with an iron rod, and threatened to kill him.
• The respondent argued that the complaint was not a counterblast since it was filed almost three years after the complaint filed by the second appellant.
• The respondent contended that the allegations in the complaint disclosed offenses under Sections 307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. The court had to determine if the High Court correctly applied the principles governing the exercise of its inherent powers.

• Whether the High Court was right in refusing to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities to determine the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.PC and the circumstances under which criminal proceedings could be quashed.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. v. Mohd. Sharful Haque and Another (2005) 1 SCC 122 to emphasize that the High Court should not inquire into the reliability of evidence under Section 482, as that is the function of the trial court.
• The Court cited S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Another (2002) 1 SCC 241 to highlight that the High Court may intervene under Section 482 when the Magistrate commits a manifest error in issuing process despite the alleged acts not constituting offenses.
• The Court referred to M.A.A. Annamali v. State of Karnataka and Another 2010 (8) SCC 524, Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 1754, and Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivlingappa Konjalgi and Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1947 to support the view that the High Court can quash proceedings if the allegations do not constitute an offense.
• The Court cited Dharampal and Ors. v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors AIR 1993 SC 1361 to emphasize that the inherent power under Section 482 cannot be exercised to do something expressly barred under the Code.
• The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 for guidelines on exercising power under Section 482, including cases where allegations do not constitute an offense or are absurd.
• The Court cited Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others 1990 Supp SCC 686 to emphasize that the High Court can quash proceedings if the complaint does not disclose any offense or is frivolous.
• The Court referred to State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy and Others (1977) 2 SCC 699 to highlight that the High Court can quash proceedings if allowing them to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or against the ends of justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the allegations in the complaint disclosed cognizable offenses, and that the High Court should not act as a trial court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. The Court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear abuse of process.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the High Court should not act as a trial court when exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint, along with the statements recorded by the Magistrate, had the necessary ingredients of the offenses under the IPC. The Court also noted that questions of fact, such as the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime, should be decided during the trial.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The plenary inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 of CrPC may be exercised to give effect to an order under the Code; to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”

“The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, 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, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.”

“In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
• The existence of civil disputes between parties does not automatically warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings if the allegations disclose cognizable offenses.
• The High Court should not act as a trial court when exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
• Questions of fact, such as the presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, should be decided during the trial, not in proceedings to quash the case.
• Criminal proceedings should not be quashed unless there is a clear abuse of the process of the court.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue in the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC sparingly and with caution. The mere existence of civil disputes between the parties is not a sufficient ground to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable offenses. This judgment reinforces the principle that the High Court should not act as a trial court and should not interfere with criminal proceedings unless there is a clear abuse of process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to quash the criminal proceedings. The Court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Section 482 of the Cr.PC should be exercised sparingly and that the existence of civil disputes does not automatically warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint disclosed cognizable offenses, and questions of fact should be decided during the trial.