Andhra Pradesh HC Refuses to Quash Perjury Complaint Against Retired Bank Manager, Holds Allegations Go Beyond Perjury

Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a petition to quash CC No. 808/2024, holding the complaint disclosed cognisable offences including cheating and property fraud beyond mere perjury.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has declined to quash criminal proceedings arising from a complaint filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against G.V. Srinivasa Rao, a retired General Manager of Indian Bank, and his father-in-law L. Sambasiva Rao. Justice Subhendu Samanta, sitting singly, dismissed Criminal Petition No. 6992/2025 on 27 July 2026, holding that the complaint in CC No. 808/2024 before the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, disclosed prima facie cognisable offences and could not be said to have been lodged with mala fide intent. The court held that the allegations were not confined to perjury alone but extended to foisting a false case, cheating, and dishonestly preventing a debt from being available to a creditor.

A Dispute Spanning Over a Decade

The litigation between the parties stretches back to 2010. The mother of the third respondent, P.V. Rajyalakshmi, alleged that G.V. Srinivasa Rao (A1), in his capacity as Chief Manager, induced her family to lend Rs. 50,00,000 on 08.03.2010 and 13.06.2010 for real estate investment. The loan was said to be secured by a promissory note at 24% per annum interest and a mortgage of three title deeds, with an undertaking not to alienate the properties until the debt was discharged.

When A1 and his wife A2 failed to repay, they issued a cheque for Rs. 25,00,000 drawn on Indian Bank, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, which was dishonoured. P.V. Rajyalakshmi initiated proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which were registered as STC No. 441/2012 before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, later renumbered as STC No. 83/2013 before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati. P.V. Rajyalakshmi also filed a civil suit based on the promissory note, numbered OS No. 456/2015 before the XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy (L.B. Nagar).

In a counter-move, A2 (wife of A1) filed a private complaint in 2012 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging that on 28.11.2011, the third respondent and his parents trespassed into her house, obtained her signatures on three blank stamp papers under threat, collected blank cheques with a filled figure of Rs. 25,00,000, and removed original land documents. That complaint was registered as CC No. 89/2013, later renumbered CC No. 154/2014, and eventually transferred to the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, after a transfer petition filed by A1 and A2 before the composite High Court at Hyderabad.

The composite High Court, on 30.04.2022, quashed CC No. 154/2014 in Crl.P. No. 4438/2016, expressly finding that the complaint was filed with mala fide intent to frustrate the NI Act proceedings and that the allegations were impossible and false.

How the Perjury Complaint Came to Be Filed

Following the quashing order, the third respondent filed a petition before the Court of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, under Section 340 CrPC seeking prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422, 465, and 109 read with 34 IPC. The Magistrate's court, through its Superintendent, initiated the complaint as CC No. 808/2024 and forwarded it to the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, which took cognisance and issued process against the accused.

G.V. Srinivasa Rao (A1) and L. Sambasiva Rao (A3) filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC read with Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash proceedings against them specifically. A2, who actually filed the private complaint that was subsequently quashed, was not a petitioner before the High Court in this petition.

The Sole Argument Advanced for Quashing

At the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, pressed only one ground: that A1 and A3 had never made any statement on oath before a competent court, and that such a sworn statement — false to the maker's knowledge and bearing directly on a judicial decision — is the sine qua non of a perjury offence. Since A2 alone filed the private complaint, A1 and A3 bore no criminal liability for perjury. Counsel also relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2024 Law Suit (SC) 686), M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana ((2000) 1 SCC 278), and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah ((2005) 4 SCC 370).

The third respondent, appearing in person, countered that A1 and A3 acted in collusion with A2. He pointed out that A1 was a joint signatory of the dishonoured cheque and thus himself an accused in the NI Act case. He submitted that A3 had received the mortgaged properties by alienation from A2 while A2's case was pending, with the object of defeating P.V. Rajyalakshmi's civil claim. He further submitted that A3 was arrayed as a witness in A2's private complaint and gave a statement under Section 161 CrPC during police investigation in that case. According to the third respondent, offences committed during the same transaction cannot be split to avoid the bar under Section 195 CrPC, and the only remedy for all connected offences was through a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Samanta began by noting that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS must be exercised very cautiously, and only in the rarest of rare cases. He applied the well-known categories set out by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, under which a quashing petition can succeed if, among other grounds, the allegations even taken at face value do not constitute any offence, or the complaint is manifestly attended with mala fides.

The court rejected the petitioners' sole argument that the case was purely one of perjury and that A1 and A3 had not sworn any affidavit. Justice Samanta held that the complaint in CC No. 808/2024 was not confined to perjury. The court observed that it also contained allegations under Section 211 IPC (false charge with intent to injure), Section 384 IPC (extortion), Sections 420, 421, 422 IPC (cheating and dishonestly or fraudulently preventing a debt from being available for creditors), and Section 465 IPC (forgery). These allegations, the court found, went well beyond the narrow question of whether A1 and A3 had personally sworn a false statement.

Justice Samanta distinguished each of the cited Supreme Court decisions on facts. James Kunjwal concerned an appellant who personally filed a false affidavit before the High Court — a factually distinct situation. M.S. Ahlawat turned on the question of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court itself under Section 142 CrPC to convict without following the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 CrPC. Iqbal Singh Marwah addressed whether a document forming the foundation of perjury falls within the scope of a preliminary enquiry when the court was not in custodial possession of it — again a different factual matrix.

The court also emphasised the limited scope of its jurisdiction. “High Court in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 BNSS cannot hold a mini trial” to test whether a complaint is correct or incorrect; the complaint must be read on its face value. On that reading, the court held, the complaint in CC No. 808/2024 disclosed cognisable offences against A1 and A3 and could not be said to have been lodged with mala fide intent.

Two specific facts weighed against the petitioners: first, A1 and A3 had made statements before the police under Section 161 CrPC during investigation of the false case filed by A2 — statements that were part of the same transaction; second, A3 had received the mortgaged properties by alienation from A2 in circumstances that the court found were argued to be a device to defraud P.V. Rajyalakshmi's civil claim, and then alienated them further to third parties.

Outcome

Criminal Petition No. 6992/2025 was dismissed as devoid of merit. The court made no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous applications, including the interlocutory applications for stay of proceedings, for dispensation of certified copies, and for expedited hearing, were disposed of as a sequel to the dismissal. CC No. 808/2024 before the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, charging A1 and A3 under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 211, 120B, 384, 420, 421, 422, 465, and 109 read with 34 IPC, will accordingly proceed.