Court holds prima facie allegations disclose cognizable offenses, stresses inherent powers cannot be used for mini-trial or to assess correctness of complaint
In a significant judgment dated July 27, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Mr. Subhendu Samanta, dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422, 465, and 109 read with Section 34 IPC. The criminal complaint relates to alleged perjury, cheating, and fraudulent alienation of properties connected to a long-running dispute involving promissory notes, dishonored cheques, and multiple litigations between the parties.
The case arose from a series of litigations initiated by the mother of the third respondent against the first petitioner and his wife concerning a loan of Rs. 50 lakh given against promissory notes and mortgage deeds. The petitioners had allegedly failed to repay the loan, leading to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988. Subsequently, the wife of the first petitioner filed a private complaint alleging trespass and forgery against the third respondent's family, which was earlier quashed by the High Court as a false case with mala fide intentions.
Following the quashing of the private complaint, the third respondent filed a fresh complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for perjury and other offences, alleging that the petitioners had colluded to file false cases to harass and delay rightful proceedings. The complaint also accused them of alienating properties fraudulently to defeat creditor claims. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons to the accused.
The petitioners challenged this, contending that no statement on oath was made by them before any competent court, a necessary condition for perjury charges. They argued that the complaint was filed without jurisdiction and was intended to harass them. The petitioners also relied on several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the need for statements on oath and proper procedural compliance before perjury proceedings could be initiated.
However, the High Court, after detailed examination, observed that the complaint disclosed prima facie cognizable offenses and that the allegations must be taken at face value without conducting a mini-trial or assessing the correctness of the claim. The Court reiterated the guidelines from the landmark Supreme Court case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, holding that quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (and Section 528 BNSS) is only warranted in rare circumstances where allegations do not disclose any offence or are inherently improbable.
The Court further noted that the petitioners had made statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during police investigation and that the properties in question were allegedly alienated fraudulently in collusion. The Court held that this was not merely a case of perjury but also involved cheating and criminal conspiracy to defeat creditor claims.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue, emphasizing that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to prematurely quash proceedings when a complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences.
This judgment underscores the judicial approach that safeguards the integrity of multiple judicial proceedings and prevents misuse of the quashing power to shield accused from facing trial in complex cases involving fraud and perjury.
Bottom Line:
The High Court cannot quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS when allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute offenses and are not inherently improbable.
Statutory provision(s): Section 340 Cr.P.C., Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422, 465, 109, 34 IPC, Sections 138, 142 N.I. Act 1988, Sections 156(3), 161 Cr.P.C.
G.V. Srinivasa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2950528
