HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 726 of 2016
ORDER:
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1, A-2 and A-9 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.148 of 2015 of Subedari Police Station, Warangal Urban District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 406, 420, 423 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, alleging that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.02 ½ gts., (10,000 square yards), in Sy.No.55 (old) 292 (New), situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District, having acquired the same along with other properties through registered sale deed bearing document No.7784 of 2011, dated 01.11.2011 from his vendor i.e., Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda, represented by its Secretary and since then he is enjoying the said property. It is further stated that the above sale deed is in compliance of the decree dated 16.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.133 of 1986 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and while disposing of the said suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, granted specific performance 2 duly revising L.P.No.6/1975 with respect to some excess land. It is further alleged that A-1 to A-11 executed a sale deed dated 13.10.2014 in favour of A-12 by wrongly describing the schedule property as 12,100 square yards instead of 10,000 square yards and the said sale deed is sham, nominal, bogus, fictitious and inoperative and that their ancestor one Nalla Ramaswamy executed a registered sale deed on 07.12.1976 and the same is within the knowledge of the accused. It is also alleged that on 03.05.2015 the accused tried to occupy the land illegally, but the 2nd respondent resisted them with the assistance of his well wishers, for which the accused abused and threatened him with dire consequences. Since the police failed to register the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, he filed the above private complaint. The learned Magistrate referred the said private complaint to the police for investigation and report. Basing on such reference, a case in Crime No.148 of 2015 came to be registered by the Police, Subedari, for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 406, 420, 423 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the present Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in the above crime.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the property in dispute originally belongs to the ancestors of the 3 petitioners as per Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, which is Inam land and pattadar is one Ramaswamy and the pahanies for the years 2009-2010 and 2011 shows that it is a vacant land alleged to be alienated by their ancestors on 07.12.1976 to the society and thereafter the Inamdar name is continued as pattadar and possessor. Therefore, it is clearly shows that the alienation by Ramaswamy is hit by Section 3 (2) (b) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 as all rights, title and interest vesting in Inamdar shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances from 01.07.1973 and no inamdar can convey any valid and legal title and interest in the property to anybody thereafter when he is divested of all rights, title and interest in the property. There is no evidence to show that he was registered as pattadar under Section 4 of the said Act. In this view of the matter, the vendor of the 2nd respondent has not acquired any title, right or interest over the property in dispute. It is further submitted that in the litigation between the Society and the 2nd respondent, the petitioners are not parties to the said suit and hence the same is not binding on them. While so, the registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011 executed by the society in favour of the 2nd respondent also does not convey any right, title or interest as the original owner Ramaswamy himself could not pass any valid title, right or interest in the property besides the fact that possession as per the pahanies for the years 1976-77 to 2013-2014 shows the name of the original ancestor of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners being 4 owners, possessors and enjoyers of the said property executed sale deed 13.10.2014 in favour of A-12. It is also submitted that the complaint prima facie established that the dispute is purely civil in nature and as such the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that even if the entire allegations are taken in its entirety, still they do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged against the petitioners and as such, initiation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and prayed to quash the proceedings in the above crime. He relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo Tripathi1 and in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2.
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal Petition contending that there is sufficient material available against the petitioners to constitute the offences alleged against them, hence requested to reject the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that it is not a dispute of civil in nature and the petitioners and other accused, having knowledge that the vendor of the 2nd respondent acquired the said property through a decree passed by the competent civil Court, created sham and bogus sale deed in order to grab the property in dispute. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent has acquired the property in question along with other 1 AIR 1979 SC 850 2 (2015) 6 SCC 287 5 properties through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011 from his vendor M/s Central Excise Officers Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Hanumakonda represented by its Secretary and ever since the date of said sale deed, he is enjoying the said property. It is further submitted that the petitioners herein have not raised any valid ground to quash the crime proceedings. The petitioners have not filed any document to show the title except revenue records (pahanies) before this Court. It is also submitted that in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court would not embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not and the proceedings against the accused in the initial stage cannot be quashed if on the facts of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, offence is constituted. He further submitted that as to what would be the evidence against the accused is not a matter to be considered at this stage and would have to be proved at the trial. It is also submitted that the allegations in the complaint make out a criminal offence against the accused persons.
In Devendra v. State of U.P.3, 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 3 (2009) 7 SCC 495 6 although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."
In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others4 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 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 4 (2011) 7 SCC 59 7 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 another5 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 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, the contention of the petitioners is that since the property in dispute is Inam land and as such, the alienation made 5 (2009) 8 SCC 751 8 by Ramaswamy as well as the subsequent alienation made by the Society in favour of the 2nd respondent is not valid.
A perusal of the material on record would show that the 2nd respondent had purchased the subject property from Central Excise Officers Cooperative Housing Society, represented by its Secretary, through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011. As per Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, the subject property is Inam land and pattadar is one Ramaswamy, who is the ancestor of the petitioners, and as per the pahanies for the years 2009-2010 and 2011, the property in dispute is a vacant land, which was alleged to be alienated on 07.12.1976 to the Society and even thereafter the name of Ramaswamy (Inamdar) is continued as pattadar and possessor. As there is a dispute with regard to the title, possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the contentions raised by the petitioners have some substance and apparently it seems that the matter is of purely civil nature, which is to be determined by a competent civil Court.
On over all consideration of entire material placed on record and the contentions urged before this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent are without any substance and the material produced before this Court, directly indicates the mala fides in prosecution of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, so 9 also, by abuse of process of the Court, as an arm-twisting method to bring the petitioners to the terms of the 2nd respondent and to cloak a civil dispute with criminal nature, he has resorted to criminal litigation.
In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2015 of Subedari Police Station, Warangal Urban District, against the petitioners/A-1, A-2 and A-9 for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 406, 420, 423 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.
____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 18.06.2021 Gsn/gkv