HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.14 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
1. Petitioner is the defacto complainant, who filed a private complaint before the concerned Magistrate and referred to Rajenderangar Police Station for the purpose of investigation. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.148 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 420, 464,406, 448, 427, 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of A.P Land Grabbing Act. However, after registration, the police investigated the case and referred the complaint as 'civil in nature'.
2. Aggrieved by the police referring the complaint as civil in nature, protest petition was filed vide Crl.M.P.No.516 of 2018 before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendernagar, praying the Court to take cognizance of the offences against the Accused Nos.1 to 8 mentioned in the private complaint. The said petition was disposed by order dated 06.12.2018 declining the prayer for taking cognizance of the offences against the respondents on the ground that there is no sufficient material to proceed against the accused, 2 accordingly, the protest petition was dismissed. The present revision is filed questioning the order of the learned Magistrate declining to take cognizance of the offences.
3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/defacto complainant purchased 20 guntas of land at Hyderguda for Rs.4.50 lakhs from one Yadireddy in the year 2002. One person namely Nooruddin took the original document from the petitioner in the month of June, 2004. The said Nooruddin along with Padma Rao/A1 obtained signatures on certain documents for the purpose of loan. K.Padmarao/ 1st respondent paid an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and promised to pay balance of Rs.4.00 lakhs the next day. Padma Rao obtained signatures of petitioner on agreement of sale-cum- General Power of Attorney documents without disclosing the contents.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein approached an Advocate and on his advise, the agreement of sale-cum-GPA document was cancelled at the Sub-Registrar Office and also filed a civil suit vide OS No.1697 of 2004 in Rangareddy Court. Padmarao 3 and another, respondents 1 & 2 herein, filed a suit in O.S.No.1155 of 2009 against the petitioner herin in respect of the said property. In the year 2013, the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed and also the petitioner's suit was also dismissed. Petitioner preferred A.S.No.105 of 2014. According to petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 herein and others trespassed into the land and damaged structures and also the plants and trees in the said property. Further during the pendency of Civil Suits, Padma Rao and others (shown as accused), sold away the property to different persons. A private complaint was filed and the police referred the case as civil in nature. Protest petition was filed, which was also dismissed.
5. Learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate having examined this petitioner as P.W.1 and also P.W.2, who is the husband of this petitioner found that the petitioner filed O.S.No.1697 of 2004 for cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed in favour of 1st and 2nd respondents. However, the said suit was dismissed on 25.06.2013. The 1st and 2nd respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1155 of 2009 aggrieved by the cancellation of 4 the agreement of sale-cum-GPA by this petitioner in favour of 1st and 2nd respondents. Learned Magistrate found that the transactions in between the parties are purely civil in nature and prima facie no criminal case was not made out against any of the respondents to proceed with criminal trial. The Magistrate relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others [AIR 2008 SC 251] and also the case of Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [AIR 2008 SC 1992] wherein it was held that there cannot be any jurisdiction before a criminal Court when the transactions are purely civil in nature and criminal Court proceedings should not be a weapon of harassment. Accordingly, with the said findings, the protest petition filed by this petitioner was dismissed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are several transactions which have been suppressed and the 1st and 2nd respondents, who induced the petitioner into registering the document, which is agreement of 5 sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. Thereafter, the property was transferred in favour of respondents 3 to 7 on 20.12.2013 by executing seven registered sale deeds on the very same day. It was further argued that taking advantage of the order in O.S.No.1697 of 2004, the structures in the property were demolished and though Crime No.923 of 2013 was registered, no action was taken. On 16.01.2016, all the respondents 1 to7 and others had trespassed into the premises and tried to grab the property. Though the possession of the property was with the petitioner, the respondents have indulged in transferring the property in between them without actual possession. For the said reason, the respondents have to be tried for the criminal offences punishable under Sections 406, 448, 427, 447 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the findings of the learned Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance on the protest petition. Learned counsel argued that the disputes which are 6 purely civil in nature are being given a cloak of criminality and falsely prosecuting the 2nd respondent to settle civil disputes.
8. The powers of the High Court in revision under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C can be for the purpose of examining any proceedings before the Lower Courts regarding the correctness, legality, propriety in findings. Unless there is any illegality, which has been committed by the lower Court, the High Court under revisional powers cannot interfere.
9. Admittedly, the transaction in between the petitioner and A1 had taken place in the month of June, 2004 and there were many transactions in between them thereafter. Aggrieved by one another, they have already approached civil Court and the civil Court dismissed the suits filed by the complainant and 1st and 2nd respondents. Though the differences arose in the year 2004, criminal complaint is filed nearly after 12 years of the transactions. Though there is an allegation of fabrication of record, no such exercise was undertaken to ascertain regarding the document, which was fabricated. 7
10. The parties having entered into registered documents by way of an agreement of sale-cum-GPA cannot allege after 12 years that cheating had taken place at the relevant time in the year 2004. It is not as though any fact had come to their knowledge for the first time in the year 2016. All along the parties have been fighting before the civil Courts.
11. There should be an intention to cheat from the inception to attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC. There is nothing mentioned in the compliant to infer that the respondents entertained any intention of cheating the complainant. Further, there are no documents which are allegedly fabricated by the respondents. As found by the learned Magistrate, the transactions in between the complainant and the respondents are purely civil in nature. Accordingly, the revision questioning the orders of the learned Magistrate refusing to take cognizance is liable to be dismissed as the findings of the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault with.
8
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:10.03.2023 kvs 9 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.14 OF 2020 Date: 10.03.2023 kvs