HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15016 of 2016
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to A-8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.363 of 2016 on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, which was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 447 of I.P.C.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the 2nd respondent") filed a private complaint against the petitioners/accused. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent that he is the Assistant General Manager of M/s. Thirumala Housing Private Limited at Malakpet, which was registered under the Companies Act, and carrying real estate business since 25 years. During the course of business, his company acquired thousand of acres of land in Ranga Reddy District and Nalgonda District. In the said process, his company acquired Ac.7.17 gts., in Sy.Nos.250 and 251 through registered sale deed vide document No.8318 of 2001. Meanwhile, the 1st petitioner/A-1 filed O.S.No.2168 of 2007 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.15 gts., in Sy.No.250 of Pasumamula Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy 2 District. It is further alleged that the 1st petitioner/A-1 had already alienated the said land to the vendors of the 2nd respondent by name Vinod Kumar and Bal Reddy, under two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3493 of 1981 and 3494 of 1981. The said Vinod Kumar and Bal Reddy, executed G.P.A. in favour of one G.Komaraiah vide document Nos.1078 of 1987 and 18/1988. Accordingly, the G.P.A. Holder G. Komaraiah, executed sale deed in favour of the company of the 2nd respondent through registered sale deed document No.8318 of 2001, dated 12.10.2001 to an extent of Ac.7.17 gts. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners/A-1 to A-8 once again alienated the same to one Satish Kumar on 16.03.2006 through registered sale deed bearing document No.5971 of 2006 and thereafter G.P.A. was executed by Satish Kumar in favour of the 1st petitioner/A-1 vide document No.3351 of 2007 and the 1st petitioner filed the said suit in the year 2007. When the matter in the civil suit was coming up for arguments, the subject land was alienated to third parties through registered sale deed bearing document No.10937 of 2014, dated 07.08.2014. It is also alleged that the 1st petitioner/A-1 in collusion with the other petitioners changed the boundaries by threatening the Manager and Staff of the company and with fabricated documents created another document, thereby cheated the company of the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate referred the said private complaint to the Police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. The Police, 3 Hayathnagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1111 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 447 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused.
Heard and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land and he acquired the same from his father B.Sathaiah by way of inheritance and after the demise of his father, the name of the 1st petitioner was mutated in revenue records and pattadar pass book and title deeds were issued in his favour vide patta No.205 and he has been cultivating the said land peacefully since long back. When the company of the 2nd respondent tried to interfere with the said property, the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.2168 of 2007 and by an order dated 21.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.532 of 2009 an ad-interim temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner restraining M/s. Sri Tirumala Housing Private Limited (company of the 2nd respondent), his agents, servants and henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st petitioner over the scheduled property pending disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent preferred C.M.A.No.768 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by the X-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, vide judgment dated 23.01.2012. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent 4 preferred C.R.P.No.2335 of 2012 before this Court and the same was dismissed. It is further submitted that subsequently the suit filed by the 1st petitioner was dismissed on 26.11.2015 and aggrieved by the same, he preferred A.S.No.38 of 2016 before the IV-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same was allowed on 04.09.2017. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed S.A.No.1244 of 2017 and this Court, while admitting the Second Appeal, granted interim suspension of the appellate Court judgment dated 04.09.2017. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent company has no locus standi to file the private complaint against the petitioners and hence the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State opposed the Criminal Petition.
Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the civil suit i.e., O.S.No.2168 of 2007 filed by the 1st petitioner was dismissed on 26.11.2015 and questioning the same, the 1st petitioner filed A.S.No.38 of 2016, which was allowed by the 1st appellate Court on 04.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent filed S.A.No.1244 of 2017 before this Court, which is pending. He further submits that the 1st petitioner is the prime accused and the other petitioners are his family members and all the petitioners were charged for fabrication of documents and for selling the land in question, thereby cheated the 2nd respondent, revenue 5 officials and registering authorities. He further submits that once the complaint reveals prima facie case against the petitioners, the proceedings initiated against them cannot be quashed at this stage and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttat Pradesh and another (S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3974 of 2018, dated 30.01.2020).
In Devendra v. State of U.P.1, the Apex Court held as under: "A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out." In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others2 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
"Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.
In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by 1 (2009) 7 SCC 495 2 (2011) 7 SCC 59 6 the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.
The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant by the Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law."
In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another3 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to 3 (2009) 8 SCC 751 7 subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."
In the instant case, admittedly, the crime has been registered in the year 2015. The material available on record discloses that in the year 2007 itself, 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.2168 of 2007 against the company of the 2nd respondent for perpetual injunction. Initially, by an order, dated 21.10.2009, passed in I.A.No.532 of 2009 an ad-interim temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner restraining the company of the 2nd respondent, his agents, servants and henchmen from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property pending disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the said order, C.M.A.No.768 of 2009 has been filed by the company of the 2nd respondent and the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 23.01.2012. The record further reveals that O.S.No.2168 of 2007 was dismissed on 26.11.2015 and questioning the same, the 1st petitioner filed A.S.No.38 of 2016, which was allowed by the 1st appellate Court on 04.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the company of the 2nd respondent filed S.A.No.1244 of 2017 before this Court, which is pending. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that both the parties are litigating against each other before the Civil Court to establish their respective rights over the schedule property. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the matter appears to be purely civil in nature and 8 the same virtually converted into criminal proceedings and as such the party should not be unnecessarily dragged to the Criminal Court. Applying the principles of the Apex Court in the judgments referred to above to the facts of this case and for the above said reasons, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of Court. Further, it will cause great injustice and inconvenience to the petitioners, if such proceedings are not quashed and allowed to be continued.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-8, in C.C.No.363 of 2016 on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 09.04.2021 gkv/Gsn