HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.9473 OF 2021
Between:
B.Rudramma and three others ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 26.04.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 9473 of 2021
% Dated 26.04.2023
# B.Rudramma and three others ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.D.Madhavi
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri P.Ranjit Kumar Reddy for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2009)1 SCC 69
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 206
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9473 of 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.4429 of 2021 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar for the offences under Sections 420, 441, 447, 427, 506 r/w 120-B of IPC.
2. The grievance of the 2nd respondent is that he had purchased open plots in Sy.No.8 and 9, situated at Chengicherla village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from R.Satyanarayana on 12.05.2014 by way of registered sale document. Further the plots originally belonged to one Smt. Bharathi Rao. The Land Reforms Tribunal vide C.C.No.1627/E/75 declared that she is the holder of land admeasuring Acs.8.09 guntas.
3. The 2nd respondent visited the plots and he found that one Srinivas Goud (A4) illegally encroached upon the plots by constructing a wall and gate was also erected. When questioned, the said Srinivas Goud (A4) informed that he 4 purchased Acs.2.00 from B.Rudramma rep. by her GPA holder R.Venkateshwar Goud on 08.04.2005. The 2nd respondent came to know that the 1st petitioner created unregistered agreements dated 12.12.1979 stating that she has purchased the land from Bharathi Rao from their respective unregistered GPA holders. According to the complaint, the 1st petitioner and others have fabricated unregistered documents and started selling plots. The 1st petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10031 of 2019 questioning the notice dated 03.05.2019 of the HMDA stating that development layout from HMDA was not obtained and the layout was unauthorized. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition directed the concerned authorities to examine the reply given by the 1st petitioner and others.
4. The Commissioner, Boduppal Municipal Corporation addressed a letter dated 26.09.2020 asking the 1st petitioner and others to approach the Court regarding the ownership of plots. The said letter itself indicates that the petitioners had fabricated documents according to the 2nd respondent. 5
5. According to the 2nd respondent on 09.10.2020, Srinivas Goud (A4) along with henchmen obstructed the 2nd respondent from entering into his plot and when questioned, they attacked him. For the reason of encroachment by the petitioners herein, police were requested to take criminal action. However, they refused, for which reason, the 2nd respondent approached the Court and filed private complaint. On reference by the Magistrate, the police investigated the case and found that the 1st petitioner created unregistered agreement dated 12.12.1979 alleging that she has purchased the land from K.Bharathi Rao and V.Padmini Devi and validated the documents under Section 5-A of Records of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 vide proceedings in File No.ROR/5-A/34/89 with the help of A4. In the year 2002, 1st Petitioner/A1 gave GPA to A4 vide registered document No.6919 of 2002 to an extent of Acs.2.00. The 1st petitioner also gave GPA to A2 to the extent of Acs.2.00 vide document No.6918 of 2002. Similarly, A1 also gave registered GPA vide document No.5171/2005 to an extent of Acs.4.17 6 guntas. Accordingly, police filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offences mentioned supra.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the property and the question of cheating or otherwise does not arise. The 2nd respondent had deliberately purchased the property though he has no right and trying to pressurize the petitioners by filing false criminal complaint. The police had earlier registered two crimes which are Cr.No.579 of 2004 and Crime No.447 of 2006 and also Crime No.666 of 2016 in respect of the very same property and all the crimes were closed as civil in nature.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if there is any dispute, it is purely civil in nature. It is for the civil Court to decide whether the petitioners have right over the property or not and the police cannot file charge sheet for the offence of cheating.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that it is clear from the investigation that the 1st petitioner did not have any right 7 over the property. However, she has given GPA to the petitioners 2 to 4. It is a clear case of cheating for which reason, proceedings cannot be quashed.
9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in the case of Sri Krishna Agencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no bar for simultaneous continuation of criminal case and civil proceedings if the facts make out a criminal prosecution apart from civil remedies that lies with the party. He also relied on the judgment reported in the case of Priti Saraf and another v. State of NCT of Delhi and another2. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case there is a remedy for breach of contract, which was invoked by the complainant that itself would not be a ground to quash the proceedings when the transactions make out an offence of cheating and Criminal misappropriation punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
1 (2009)1 SCC 69 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 206 8
10. The investigation was conducted by the police and during the course of investigation, it was found that the 1st petitioner had entered into unregistered agreement of sale with one Bharathi Rao and another and thereafter, it was regularized. On the basis of documents available with her, she has executed registered GPA in favour of A2 to A4. The 2nd respondent is claiming his rights over the said property on the ground that he has purchased the said plots from one R.Satyanarayana r/o Secunderabad through registered sale deeds, registered before the SRO, Ranga Reddy District. The link documents were inspected and Investigating Officer has found that it was Bharathi Rao and another who had also sold the properties. In the case of 1st petitioner and also the complainant when the sale is traced, both of them are claiming that Bharathi Rao is the person who sold the property. Charge sheet is filed for the offence of cheating.
11. To attract an offence of cheating, essential ingredients are act of fraudulent deception pursuant to which a person should have delivered property, thereby causing wrongful loss. In the present case, it is for the civil Court to decide who 9 has title over the said property. The police cannot decide the rightful owner when two parties are claiming ownership tracing back to the very same vendor/seller of the property. It is for the civil Court to decide who has better title and who the owner of the property is.
12. The case is purely civil in nature, even according to the complaint, the 1st petitioner never met the complainant and only on the enquiries of the 2nd respondent/ complainant he came to know that A1/1st petitioner had purchased the property. Thereafter, gave GPA in favour of A2 to A4. For the said reason, when the 2nd respondent has no confirmation or declaration by a competent civil Court about his claim of ownership over the said land, the question of prosecuting the petitioners in a criminal case on the basis of the findings of the Investigating Officer that the land belongs to the 2nd respondent cannot be permitted. The Investigating Officer cannot decide the rights and claims of two different parties over the property. It is for the civil Court to decide regarding the rights and in the present case, the remedy is to approach the civil Court.
10
13. The transactions in question are purely civil in nature and to be decided by the civil Court. It is not the case of the police that during the course of investigation, it was found that these petitioners had fabricated any documents as alleged by the 2nd respondent. For the aforementioned reasons, criminal prosecution cannot be maintained against the petitioners.
14. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/ Accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.4429 of 2021 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.04.2023.
Note: L.R copy to be marked kvs 11 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Criminal Petition No.9473 of 2021 Date:26.04.2023 kvs