Telangana High Court
Mandadi Laxma Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5311 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in CC.No.882 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, at Hayathnagar, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 415, 420, 503, 406, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2020 the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Vanasthalipuram Police Station, stating that one person namely M.Laxma Reddy/petitioner No.1/accused No.1 represented that he is the owner and possessor of the plot bearing No.27, admeasuring 240 square yards in Survey No.245 of Injapur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, and that he offered to sell the said plot to respondent No.2, as such, on 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5311 of 2023 5.12.2017 the petitioner No.1 entered into an Agreement of Sale with respondent No.2 to sell the said plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and on the same day the respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance cum part sale consideration. Thereafter, upon execution of agreement, the petitioner No.1 informed that the plot registration is on the name of his wife (petitioner No.2/accused No.2) and promised to get executed the sale deed through his wife. Later, when the respondent No.2 approached petitioner No.1 and requested him to execute the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- the petitioner No.1 refused to do the same and gave evasive reply and with an intention to extract more amounts, he stated that the plot is in the name of his wife and she has not executed any agreement/receipt, as such, the receipt executed by him is invalid. It was alleged that the petitioner NOs.1 and 2 threatened respondent No.2 that if he fails to pay more amounts, they will alienate the said plot in favour of third parties at higher prices.
3. With regard to the above dispute, the respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.526 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, whereunder, the 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5311 of 2023 petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein denied the execution of agreement of sale and stated that the Agreement shown by respondent No.2 is invalid.
4. On receipt of said complaint, the Police investigated the matter and on completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet, wherein, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Sections 415, 420, 503 and 406, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.
5. Heard Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1 - State, and Sri V.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and with regard to the same, O.S.No.526 of 2018 was filed and the same is pending before the Civil Court. He contended that pending disposal of the said O.S., the respondent No.2 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5311 of 2023 resorted to file a false complaint against the petitioners and the same shows his malafide intention to harass the petitioners. He asserted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the FIR and the charge sheet are baseless, vague and without any material evidence, and the same amounts to abuse of process of law.
7. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Chakraborty and Another Vs. State of Bengal and Another 1, R.Nagender Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Another 2, and Mitesh Kumar J.Shah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others 3. Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the complaint are serious and after due investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90 2 2023 2 SCC 195 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5311 of 2023 420, 503 and 406, read with Section 34 of IPC, as such, prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioners have allegedly attempted to extract more money from the respondent No.2 by not executing the agreement of sale in spite of receiving part sale consideration and threatening him to alienate the property in favour of third parties. It is further noted that pertaining to the said dispute, a civil case is already pending before the Civil Court vide O.S.No.526 of 2018.
10. At this stage, it is imperative to note that in the case of R.Narender Yadav (supra 2) in paragraph No.19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"19. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC, the High Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.5311 of 2023 justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as has happened in the case on hand, the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of court."
11. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the allegation against the petitioners is that after executing agreement of sale, the respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- whereas the total sale consideration is Rs.6,00,000/-. Further, he refused to receive the remaining sale consideration and not executing sale deed and gave evasive reply to extract more money. Aggrieved thereby, a suit was specific performance was filed which is pending. 7
SKS,J Crl.P.No.5311 of 2023
12. In view thereof, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.Narender Yadav (supra 2) and the fact that a civil case between the parties is already pending before the Civil Court vide O.S.No.526 of 2018, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are liable to be quashed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC.No.882 of 2021 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District, at Hayathnagar, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:19 .07.2024 PT