HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.13871 OF 2013
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/A11 and A12 for quashing all the proceedings against them in CC No.1004 of 2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, Which charge sheet is filed by the Keesara police for the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd petitioner/A12 died, as such, case against A12 stands abated.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st respondent/complainant and 66 other farmers are owners of Acs.177.26 guntas situated at Keesara Dayara village in Sy.Nos.10,11,17,16,15,39,123,257,264,263,262, 164, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 and cultivating the same since 60 years and above with peaceful possession. A1 to A7 colluded with these the petitioners who are directors of M/s.Vikrama Infra and got registered part of the land i.e., the agriculture land in Sy.No.123 Part, admeasuring acs.9.00 guntas and land in 2 Sy.No.159 part, admeasuring Acs.13.16 guntas, in Sy.No160 Part, admeasuring 9.16 guntas in Sy.No.164, admeasuring Acs.11.23 guntas, in Sy.No.257, admeasuring Acs.20.18 guntas, total land admeasuring acs.54.33 guntas, situated at Keesara Dayara village, Keesara Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under Keesara Dayara Gram Panchayat.
5. The defacto complainant and other 66 farmers are pattadars of the said lands purchased by petitioners and all of them were given ownership certificate under Section 38 E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and since then they have been in peaceful possession. The accused 1 to 7, who are legal heirs of late Tarabai, challenged the certificate issued to the defacto complainant and others under Section 38-E of the Act, before the Joint Collector. However, their appeal was dismissed and the ownership of the defacto complainant was confirmed.
6. The police having registered complaint, after investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A16 for the reason of entering into criminal conspiracy and committing the act of cheating. 3 A1 to A7 registered the property in favour of these petitioners and others, though it is to their knowledge that the accused A1 to A7 did not have any right over the said property.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even admitting the sale transaction, no offence of cheating or criminal conspiracy is made out. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in the cases of i) Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwavi v. CBI, New Delhi1, ii) Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited2, iii) Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home3, iv) Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana4 and argued that none of the ingredients under Section 420 are made out and unless there is misrepresentation pursuant to which a person is induced and delivers property, the offence of Section 420 IPC will be attracted. Further, there has to be an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act and only in the said circumstances, an offence under Section 120-B of 1 (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 257 2 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736 3 (2019) 11 Supreme Court Cases 706 4 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 4 IPC is attracted. No such evidence is available to infer criminal conspiracy.
8. The case against these petitioners is that they have purchased the property, being the Directors of the company on behalf of M/s.Vikrama Infra Ventures Private Limited.
9. The ownership is in the name of the defacto complainant and other farmers by virtue of Section 38-E ownership certificate. In the said circumstances, even assuming that A1 to A7 have registered the land in the name of these petitioners, such registration would not confer any right to the petitioners over the property in any manner. When the property does not belong to A1 to A7, the said transaction between A1 to A7 and the petitioners selling the land of defacto complainant and others would not in any manner create any right either to the accused A1 to A7 or to these petitioners.
10. Except the police investigation stating that the transaction of sale was in between A1 to A7 and these petitioners, there is absolutely no allegation that these petitioners have, at any point of time, either approached the defacto complainant or any of the other farmers in any manner or induced them to part with any property. As already stated, the sale transaction between A1 to A7 will not in 5 any manner create any right to these petitioners over the said property. In the said circumstances, no offence of cheating is made against these petitioners. The petitioners have purchased the property in the name of the company, but the company is not named as accused. For the aforesaid reasons, the case against the petitioner/A11 is hereby set aside.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against petitioner/A11 in CC No.1004 of 2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.09.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13871 OF 2013 Date: 08.09.2022.
kvs 7