HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2415 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.3538 of 2021 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendernagar.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that he purchased the plot in question which is plot no.77, Sy.No.159, Brundavan Colony situated at Narsingi village and registered on 22.07.2019 vide document No.8275 of 2019 from one Smt. Chitturi Subbalakshmi, W/o late Sri Chitturi Balarama Murthy and her family members. Since the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property.
According to the complainant, the plot was subjected to transfer in the name of first petitioner on the basis of false documents which were created. Though the said late Chitturi Balarama Murthy died on 06.03.1974, false document was created which is a GPA in the name of one B.Anjan Kumar on 02.09.2008 at Tadepallilgudem. Said B.Anjan Kumar sold the property to one 2 Samala Kishan, who in turn sold it to V.Jyothi and the said V.Jyothi sold it to the1st petitioner/A1 herein.
3. Further, according to the complainant, the civil Court observed that the GPA dated 02.09.2008 in the name of late Chitturi Balarama Murthy was fabricated document. On 22.06.2020 some persons were interfering with the possession of their property, for which a complaint was lodged. Thereafter, again for the reason of the petitioners 2 and 3 entering into the said premises and trying to construct a compound wall, present complaint came to be filed. The police, PS Narsingi, after conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 420, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd petitioner/A2 died, as such, the case against 2nd petitioner stands abated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a bare reading of the complaint, the transactions are purely civil in nature and the question of these petitioners being involved in criminal offence does not arise. The said criminal complaint was filed only to 3 settle civil disputes, which cannot be permitted. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randheer Singh v. The State of U.P in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021, dated 02.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no criminal offence was made out for the reason of the documents filed not disclosing any fabrication of documents by the petitioners therein.
6. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.39 of 2022 and referred to para nos.15 to 19, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the powers of the High Court to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s.NEPC India Ltd., (AIR 2006 SC 2780) and argued that it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
7. Admittedly, the land was purchased by A1 on 16.07.2012 from vendor V.Jyothi. Even according to the investigation, on the basis of 4 an alleged fabricated document dated 02.09.2008 in favour of B.Anjan Kumar, property was sold to one Samala Kishan, who in turn sold it to V.Jyothi. The 1st petitioner is the 4th purchaser. The said persons B.Anjan Kumar, Samala Kishan and V.Jyothi are not arrayed as accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the 1st petitioner having knowledge about the falsity of the ownership or fabrication of documents, purchased the subject property in the year 2012. The complainant had purchased the property in the year 2019 and the civil Court by order dated 30.07.2013 found that the document dated 02.09.2008 in favour of B.Anjan Kumar was fabricated. In the said circumstances, when the 1st petitioner/A1 had purchased the property in the year 2012 itself, the allegation that this petitioner was complicit in fabricating the documents, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the 4th purchaser of the said property, and all previous documents are registered documents.
8. To attract an offence of cheating, it has to be shown that the persons had deceitfully obtained the property. There are no such allegations in the present complaint, even according to the 2nd 5 respondent, the petitioners 1 and 2 are strangers, who are identified only on the date when the alleged trespassing had taken place. Even according to the police, no documents are fabricated by the petitioners. The 1st petitioner had purchased the land by way of registered sale deed, for which reason, the question of fabrication of documents does not arise.
9. Even according to the charge sheet, the petitioners do not have knowledge about any parallel registration of the very same property. 3rd petitioner along with the deceased 2nd petitioner entered into the plot, which was purchased by A1 in the year 2012, such entering the plot would not amount to an offence of criminal trespass as they entered under a bonafide belief that the plot which was purchased in the year 2012 belongs to A1.
10. For all the above mentioned reasons, no case is made out against the 1st and 3rd petitioners, who are A1 and A3.
11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and A3 in C.C.No.3538 of 2021 on the file of XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendernagar, are hereby quashed.
6
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 27.12.2022 kvs 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.2415 OF 2022 Date: 27.12.2022.
kvs 8