THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8692 OF 2017
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.95 of 2017 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, in which the petitioner is the sole accused.
2. A private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant/2nd respondent in the court of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar stating that the complainant's father died on 14.02.2000 and during his life time, he did not execute any sale deed, will deed, gift deed, mortgage deed or leased the property to third parties. Said property is in Sy.No.389/AA admeasuring Acs.2.31 guntas situated at Machirevula village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District. On 28.03.2016, the petitioner/accused entered into the property of the complainant with fraudulent intention and also had created fabricated documents to grab the property. When the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant questioned, the petitioner used filthy language and created a scene at the land. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has no right over the said property and the petitioner is making all possible efforts to disturb the complainant/2nd respondent. The 2 said private complaint was referred to police for the purpose of investigation. The police filed charge sheet alleging commission of offence under Sections 420, 447, 406, 506 and 120-B of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the allegations made in the charge sheet and the statement of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent, no offence is made out against the petitioner. In fact, the land was purchased by the petitioner on 28.08.2002 and thereafter sold the said land on 07.09.2007 in favour of one Chebrolu Narendernath. For the said reason, the question of the petitioner claiming the land on 28.03.2016 and trespassing into the said land does not arise.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randheer Singh v. State of U.P1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there should have been dishonest inducement and the person so deceived should have delivered any property. Further, when the dispute is purely civil in nature and deliberately given a colour of criminal offence, in such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 942 3 proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant/2nd respondent submits that though the offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC are not made out on the face of the statement of the 2nd respondent, however, there is criminal trespass and intimidation, which is apparent from the charge sheet and also the statement of complainant. For the said reason, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
6. The purchase of the land by the petitioner on 28.08.2002 and selling the said land on 07.09.2007 is not disputed. It is neither the case of police nor the defacto complainant that the documents are in any way fabricated. The police have investigated the case and except stating that the petitioner with the help of fabricated and created documents, tried to grab the property, however, it is not stated the said sale deeds which are dated 28.08.2002 and 07.09.2007 are fabricated documents.
7. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the petitioner and the vendor, who had sold the property to the petitioner, is not made as an accused. No documents are filed by the police or the complainant to substantiate that the defacto complainant/2nd 4 respondent has any right over the said property which is Ac.2.31 guntas, situated at Manchirevula village, Rajendranagar, R.R.District. When the complainant himself has failed to produce any documents to substantiate his right over the said property, the question of either trespass or criminal intimidation by the petitioner does not arise. In the complaint, the date of offence is mentioned as 28.03.2016, however, the private complaint is made before the court on 26.05.2016 without assigning any reasons as to why there is a delay of nearly two months in lodging the said complaint.
8. As already observed, there is no inducement by this petitioner pursuant to which any property is parted by the defacto complainant, for which reason, Section 420 of IPC is not attracted. Further, there is no entrustment of any property, which has been misappropriated to attract an offence under Section 406 of IPC. In the absence of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent and the police filing any record to show that the 2nd respondent was the owner of the land in question, the question of the petitioner trespassing and intimidating the defacto complainant/2nd respondent does not arise.
5
9. In the said circumstances, no case is made out for any of the offences alleged, for which reason, the proceedings in CC No.95 of 2017 on the file of XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar are hereby quashed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 11.10.2022 Kvs.
6
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.8692 of 2017 Dt.11.10.2022 kvs