Telangana High Court
Samreddy Keethi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 24 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6505 OF 2022
ORDER
In this Petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.2786 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before Balapur Police Station, Rachakonda on 20.02.2019 which is registered as FIR No.70 of 2019 dt.20.02.2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). Petitioner No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.343, admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 gts., situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal. In the year 2018, respondent No.2/de facto complainant approached the petitioners herein showing willingness to purchase a part of the land in Survey No.343 and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 came to an agreement with Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 2 mutually agreed terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions, respondent No.2 claims to have paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.000059 dt.10.08.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited as advance towards the sale consideration. Petitioner No.1, thereafter, executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession vide registered Document No.15583/2018 dt.18.09.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts., in Survey No.343 situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal. Subsequently, the petitioners received a letter dt.18.09.2018 from M/s. Pride India Mansions Pvt., Ltd., stating that the advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- paid to the petitioners was to be adjusted towards the registration of the agreement vide Document No.15583/2018. It is submitted that at the request of respondent No.2, in good faith, petitioner No.1 has received only the cheque amount towards sale consideration and executed another AGPA vide Document No.16784/2018, dt.18.10.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 with respect to Ac.0.10 gts., of land situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal and respondent No.2 was yet to pay the full sale consideration as agreed between the parties. It is submitted that Respondent No.2, being a real estate developer, had developed a sore eye over petitioner Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 3 No.1's property and was trying to take over the petitioners' property without clearing the payment of the balance sale consideration. It is submitted that respondent No.2, with a mala fide intention to cause undue trouble, had approached the Balapur Police Station and filed a complaint on 20.02.2019 which is registered as FIR No.70 of 2019 against petitioners 1 and 2 for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that thereafter, respondent No.2 has also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners vide O.S.No.528 of 2019 on 11.03.2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar which is pending consideration. Another suit, i.e., O.S.No.2888 of 2019 dt.07.11.2019 has also been filed on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar which is also pending consideration. It is submitted that in the plaint filed in O.S.No.2888 of 2019, respondent No.2 has himself accepted that they have to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioners herein and therefore, the averments in the complaint regarding Rs.20,00,000/- as advance payment pending with the petitioners is contrary to record. It is further submitted that the petitioners were served with notices under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'CrPC') dt.10.04.2019 and the petitioners have submitted the entire set of Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 4 documents pertaining to the above transaction to the police. It is further submitted that the police filed charge sheet in the month of April, 2019 without conducting any enquiry and without application of mind and pursuant to the charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance of the same. On the ground that the charge sheet is perverse and constitutes abuse of process of law, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of CrPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 is using the legal machinery as a tool against the petitioners and the contents of the complaint did not establish any basis for registering the case or pursuing the case under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC. He submitted that in the suit filed by respondent No.2, the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- was to be paid and therefore, the question of refunding of the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- received by the petitioners does not arise. He submitted that the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are not present in the present case and even the provision of Section 506 of IPC is not applicable. In support of his contention that the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, has to read in between lines and has a duty to look into the Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 5 FIR more closely as the complainant would ensure that the FIR is well drafted, he placed reliance upon the following two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1) Mohammad Wajid and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 1 (2) Haji Iqbal alias Bala Vs. State of U.P. and others 2 In support of other contention that the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that it would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indisputable facts and that the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused while invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor 3.
4. Sri. S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, however, opposed the said contentions and submitted that after due investigation into the allegations made against the petitioners herein, a charge sheet 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946 3 (2013) 3 SCC 330 Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 6 has been filed and therefore, a case is clearly made out against the petitioners.
5. Notices were issued to respondent No.2 through Court process as well as personal service, however, they could not be served and therefore, vide order dt.22.02.2023, the petitioners were permitted to take out substituted service and the petitioners have taken out substituted service through paper publication. However, in spite of the substituted service also, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2. Therefore, it shall be considered as deemed service and it is taken that respondent No.2 is not interested to pursue the Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the offence under which the crime has been registered against the petitioners is only under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC. For the sake of ready reference, the said provisions are reproduced as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 7 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"506. Punishment for Criminal Intimidation.--Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, to attract the provisions of Section of 420 of IPC, there has to be dishonest inducement to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. It is admitted fact that it is the petitioner No.1 who is the owner of the property and there was an agreement for sale of the property and the sale consideration was also agreed to and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- had been paid as an advance. Admittedly, she has not received the entire sale consideration and petitioner No.1 has to receive the balance sale consideration and therefore, there is no case of cheating attracting the Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 8 provisions of Section 420 of IPC and the petitioners have not induced any person, leave alone respondent No.2 to purchase the property at a particular rate and the ingredients of criminal intimidation are also absent in this case. The police officials have not brought out any evidence on record in the charge sheet to demonstrate or prove that the petitioners have resorted to any intimidating tactics or to cheat respondent No.2. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are applicable to the facts of the case on hand in the following manner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others 4 has observed that cases purely of civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. It is observed that it is necessary to examine the ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420, 405, 406 and 120-B of IPC to a particular set of facts.
9. In the case of Mitesh Kumar J Vs. State of Karnataka 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts, while exercising the inherent powers should look into the facts of the case and as to 4 (2022) 7 SCC 124 5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976 Crl.P.No.6505 of 2022 9 whether the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are such as a prudent person can reach to a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the case of Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed the above said position.
10. In view of the above judgments and also the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the contents of the charge sheet, this Court finds that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 506 of IPC are clearly not attracted in the case on hand and therefore, the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.2786 of 2019 dt. .04.2019 on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
11. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 24.11.2023 Svv 6 (2015) 7 SCC 423