1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9118 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 to call for the records relating to proceedings in C.C.No.495 of 2016, on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad and quash the same. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent- State. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that he saw an advertisement in a daily newspaper and accordingly, he approached the 1st petitioner herein who is arrayed as A-2. A-2 informed that the plot belongs to his brother-in- law/A-1. The 2nd respondent negotiated for the purchase of the plot for an amount of Rs.41 lakhs and paid Rs.28 lakhs in all. It is alleged that Rs.10 lakhs was paid through RTGS 2 to the account of A-2 which details were given by A-1. They have entered into a sale agreement. However, the 2nd respondent came to know that the said plot was mortgaged with the bank and A-1 has taken loan from the bank. When de-facto complainant asked to register the said plot in his name, A-1 and these petitioners refused and threatened the de-facto complainant.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police, Jeedimetla registered FIR and filed charge sheet.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even according to the complaint, the property belongs to A-1 and agreement of sale was also entered into by A-1. Further in the year, 2023, a civil suit was also filed by the 2nd respondent against A-1, which is pending adjudication before the Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel further argued that any attempt to show a civil dispute as criminal offence, High Court is competent to quash the said proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3
7. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy And Another vs. Sudha Seetharam And Another 1. He also relied on Prem Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan And Another 2, wherein it was held that when no steps were taken for more than 10 years by the vendee, for which reason, the proceedings were quashed in the facts of the case. He further relied on Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another 3, where in it was held that when the Civil Court was adjudicating the very same issue, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue without any criminal element having been established, would be abuse of process of law.
8. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that though the plot belongs to A-1, it was A-2 who had introduced A-1 and also mediated in the transactions and both these petitioners/A-2 and A-3 acted as witnesses in the document of agreement of sale. Whether they have committed cheating is the subject of 1 (2019) 16 SCC 739 2 (2020) 20 SCC 623 3 (2020) 12 SCC 51 4 matter of trial and can be decided after giving opportunity to the complainant to adduce the evidence.
9. Admittedly, the plot belongs to A-1 and no where it is mentioned that these petitioners have any idea about the plot being mortgaged to the bank. Admittedly, A-1 had issued advertisement in the newspaper pursuant to which the de-facto complainant had contacted them for the purchase of the said plot. Moreover, the de-facto complainant also resorted to filing of a civil suit in the said transaction against A-1.
10. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there has to be an act of deception pursuant to which, the person deceived should have parted with property. Knowledge of factum of mortgaging the property and obtaining loan is not attributed to these petitioners. They have brokered the deal in between with the de-facto complainant and A-1. It cannot be said that these petitioners had any intention to cheat the de-facto complainant.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.495 of 2016, on the file of VI 5 Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad, against the petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 01.11.2023 dv 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9118 of 2016 Dt.01.11.2023 dv