Telangana High Court
Vikash Kumar Keshan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10824 of 2018
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.792 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-b of IPC.
2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents lodged a written complaint with the Madhapur Police Station on 19.09.2018 stating that they entered into an agreement of sale with respect to three share holders in an extent of Acs.69.10 guntas. In all, there were 104 shares in the said property and civil suits for for partition were before the Civil Court. The three share holders will get an extent of Acs.22.13 guntas and accordingly the said shareholders namely Masood Ali Khan, Hasan Ali Khan and Smt.Sharifunnisa Begum have assigned their shares on 01.10.1998 by taking the entire consideration amount from the complainants. Final decree was passed on 07.07.2005 in the pending suit and the appeal against the said decree was 2 dismissed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court. In the year 2007, appeal was preferred in the High Court and the High Court reversed the judgment of the lower Court in the year 2010. Aggrieved by the same, appeal was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court on 21.03.2017 and confirmed the trial Court's final decree dated 07.07.2005.
3. Both the complainants were approached by the 2nd petitioner and promised to represent in the Supreme Court proceedings when they were pending. Even prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the month of August, 2016, the shares of the complainants were given for development to the 2nd petitioner/Rajinder Sharma. After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, A2 asked all the assignees of the land to enter into development agreement with Maha Keshan Developer Private Limited and accordingly, there was an agreement of sale without possession, which was entered on 21.07.2016. Smt. Anees Makhandar, one of the legal heirs wanted extra payment for her share. An agreement 3 was made with the 2nd petitioner for payment of extra money to her by giving 5000 sq.yds, which belongs to the complainant/Y.Anthi Reddy and Sridhar Reddy at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per sq.yard in November, 2016. The 2nd petitioner paid Rs.1,50,00,000/- and the balance was not paid. Though the complainants were insisting that the petitioners develop the lands as promised, no development was done by 2nd petitioner. He was passing time and did not take any steps to develop the land. In the back ground of the 2nd petitioner not developing the property all the assignees cancelled the development agreement and one of the assignees V.Madana Mohan Rao cancelled the development agreement by refunding the advance paid by Rajinder Sharma/2nd petitioner and A1/Vikash Kumar Keshan.
4. Thereafter, five of the assignees in respect of Acs.3.35 guntas gave power of attorney to A1/1st petitioner and two of them entered into deed of ratification in favour of Mahalaxmi Properties and Developer (Private) Limited represented by A2 for 5000 sq.yds vide document No.9351/2016, dated 4 21.07.2016. For the said reason of the legal heirs of Sharifunnisa and Hasan Ali having no right in the properties, entered into agreement with the petitioners, having knowledge that the complainants have interest in the properties, complainants alleged that they have been cheated. The act of the petitioners in entering into agreements with persons having no right in the property, amounts to cheating. On the basis of the said complaint, crime was registered.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the disputes inter-se the parties are purely civil in nature and criminal complaint is deliberately made to settle such civil disputes. Both the complainants themselves have executed several documents in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land and the disputes, if any, can only be agitated before the civil Court. The police have no business to register the said complaint, which makes out civil dispute and the interference of the police in the name of investigation is wholly unwarranted. This Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C may quash the First Information Report.
5
6. On the other hand, Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that proceedings in crime can be quashed only under exceptional circumstances. The petitioners having knowledge that the complainants were persons having rights over the property, have entered into agreement with the other persons having no rights in the property, which was deliberately done to cheat the complainants. Since prima facie case of cheating is made out, investigation has to go on.
7. As seen from the narration of the complaint, complainants had entered into agreement with the assignees who were parties to the partition suit. In respect of the property, sharers were 104. The male children were allotted 14/104 shares, wives 13/104 shares and female children 7/104 shares, which was confirmed in appeal by the High Court in 1976. Subsequently, in the year 1990, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Court for partition of the lands and the Advocate Commissioner divided the lands and submitted report in 1993. On 25.12.1993, the complainants 6 have entered into agreement of sale with three shareholders. All the said aspects were subject matters of civil disputes before the civil Court. The main grievance of the complainants is that five of the shareholders, now having no share had transacted with these petitioners in respect of the subject land to cheat them, though rights over the property were with the complainants. Even assuming that earlier the said lands were subject matters of transactions in between the shareholders and the complainants and subsequently, shareholders have entered into any kind of transactions in respect of the very same lands with the petitioners herein, it cannot be said that the petitioners have in any manner cheated the complainants.
8. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, a person should have made false representations pursuant to which, a person must have been induced believing the said representation. The person induced should have delivered property resulting in wrongful loss to him.
9. The disputes in respect of the lands were pending prior to 1970. Thereafter, the complainants have entered into 7 transactions with the shareholders during pendency of disputes in Civil Courts. In turn, complainants have entered into transactions with these petitioners even prior to the disputes attained any finality. Due to disputes in between the complainants and the petitioners, the petitioners entered into transactions with the shareholders. In such circumstances, when all the transactions inter-se the shareholders and the persons entering into either for development of land or general power of attorney etc, in respect of the subject land, it cannot be said that these petitioners having initially entered into an agreement with the complainants and thereafter with the shareholders, though in respect of the very same property, will not amount to an offence of cheating. The transactions are purely civil in nature and it can only be agitated before the civil Court. The registration of crime is nothing but abuse of process of criminal investigation. It is apparent that, to settle civil disputes, criminal complaint is filed.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 AIR 604), had 8 enunciated the principles for use of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is held as follows:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.792 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.
12. Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 08.02.2024 kvs