Sri. N Bharath Reddy vs. Sri. C Sunil Kumar

Facts

The petitioners, accused Nos. 4 to 6 in a private complaint, sought to quash the complaint and the subsequent order directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, who are relatives, along with others, committed fraud by usurping properties of one N. Deva Reddy, the complainant's father-in-law. The complaint was based on a General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed in 2012, which the complainant alleged was a product of fraud, leading to properties changing hands by forging his signatures. The petitioners argued that the complaint was filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of eight years, that a civil transaction was given a criminal colour, and that the Magistrate's order lacked application of mind. The complainant contended that he became aware of the fraud only in 2020 when the Income Tax Department issued a notice, and that the delay was explained by the need to gather documents.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the private complaint and the order directing investigation. The Court found that the complaint was filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of eight years, which constituted a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores. The Court relied on the Apex Court's pronouncements in cases like CHANCHALPATI DAS and MAHMOOD ALI, emphasizing that continuation of malicious prosecution or frivolous proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, especially when the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case. The Court observed that the allegations were absurd and improbable, and that the Magistrate ought to have filtered frivolous complaints by applying some scrutiny, rather than passing a laconic order of reference. The Court held that the delay, improbability, and lack of bonafides in the complaint, even if taken as true, did not constitute ingredients of a crime. Therefore, permitting further proceedings would degenerate into harassment and result in patent injustice. The Court directed that the observations made were for the purpose of considering the petitioners' case under Section 482 of the CrPC and would not bind other proceedings between the parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the private complaint registered in P.C.R. No.74/2022 and the order dated 28.02.2022 directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC are liable to be quashed on the grounds of inordinate delay, lack of application of mind by the Magistrate, and the complaint disclosing a civil dispute rather than a criminal offence? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 406 r/w Section 120-B, 114, 182, 191, 192 of the IPC and Section 156(3) of CrPC). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of 10 years, which was unexplained and based on a flimsy ground of cause of action, making it improbable and unbelievable. They contended that a stale complaint was referred for investigation without the Magistrate applying his mind, and that a civil transaction had been given a criminal colour. They also pointed out that civil suits had been instituted on the same cause of action. Respondent's arguments: The respondent-complainant argued that he became aware of the fraudulent activity only in 2020 when the Income Tax Department issued a notice, and that the delay was justified as he needed to gather necessary documents. He further contended that the matter was referred for investigation, and mere reference would not cause prejudice to the petitioners, thus seeking dismissal of the petition.