Telangana High Court
Avireddy Ganesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6601 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.6875 of 2021 on the file of VII-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 405, 420, 441 and 503 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').
2. The facts of the case are that on 10.10.2018 the complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that he is the owner of property bearing MCH No.16-11-469/47 & 47/A of Moosarambagh and running a church in the name and style of Christian Life Centre Church since ten years. When the 2nd respondent was in need of money, petitioner No.1/A.1 approached him through A.3 and advised 2nd respondent to obtain loan and as the SIBIL rating of 2nd respondent is very low and of A.1 is very high, the 2nd respondent has agreed to transfer the title of above property in the name of petitioners for getting higher amount as loan. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent 2 executed an agreement of sale in favour of A.1 and obtained housing loan of Rs.1,08,00,000/- in his name. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent executed sale deed bearing document No.3610 of 2013 dated 25.07.2013 in favour of petitioners and the said sale deed was hypothecated in HDFC Bank till repayment of loan amount in the name of A.1. After receiving the loan amount, the 2nd respondent and A.1 shared the loan amount equally and entered into MOU stating that A.1 and A.2 to re-transfer the property in the name of 2nd respondent after the entire loan amount is paid and cleared, but the accused did not transfer the property in the name of 2nd respondent and violated the terms of MOU. The petitioners came to the house of 2nd respondent on 12.06.2016 and 14.06.2016 with an ill-intention to occupy the same by dispossessing him from the subject property, but the 2nd respondent resisted them. Hence, the accused threatened him with dire consequences and claimed that at any cost, they would dispossess the 2nd respondent. As such, the 2nd respondent requested the Court to take action against the accused. The said complaint was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered the case, investigated the same and filed charge sheet. 3
3. Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the two undertakings duly signed by the 2nd respondent given to the petitioners completely defeat the version of 2nd respondent. It clearly establishes that petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the subject property. He also contended that the investigating officer should have considered that as on the date of alleged offence, petitioners are the rightful owners of subject property, having obtained title through registered sale deed and that the 2nd respondent himself stated that he is in permissive possession of the subject property. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioners have trespassed into the subject property. Hence, no offence under Section 441 of I.P.C, attracts to the petitioners and in fact, the 2nd respondent was in illegal possession of the subject property. Learned counsel further contended that even if the version of 2nd respondent is accepted the alleged default of MOU gives rise to a civil remedy, wherein 4 the 2nd respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.674 of 2016 on the file of XVII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and the petitioners herein have filed another suit vide O.S.No.601 of 2016 on the file of X-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking recovery of possession and damages against the 2nd respondent herein who is the defendant in the said suit, for not handing over possession of the suit property, which is also pending before the trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof.R.K.Vijayasarathy and another Vs Suda Seetharam and another 1. He also contended that when the investigating officer accepted the version of 2nd respondent he should have considered that mere violation of contract does not amount to charge under Section 420 of I.P.C. The intention to induce a person to depart with certain property is a key ingredient of Section 415 of I.P.C., which defines cheating. The charge sheet fails in disclosing any such intention of cheating by the petitioners and the undertaking given by the 2nd respondent is a clear indication that petitioners 1 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1434 OF 2018 5 have no intention to cheat the 2nd respondent and it was the 2nd respondent who did not perform his part of undertaking and cheated the petitioners. Learned counsel further contended that as no MOU is existed, the 2nd respondent cannot claim that there is criminal breach of trust and on the contrary, the property was entrusted to the 2nd respondent by way of undertaking who promised to vacate the same in the time stipulated therein, but he continued to hold the said property. Petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and they tried to assert their bonafide right over the subject property. There are no averments to constitute the offence under Section 503 of I.P.C, and this case is squarely covered by the judgment of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 2. The present case is filed in the year 2018 and the alleged offence took place in the year 2016 i.e., there is delay of two years in filing complaint before the Court and there is no explanation for the said delay. When for the same cause of action, two suits are pending, filing a criminal case is nothing but arm twisting the petitioners to come to the compromise. In fact, petitioners herein are the victims in the hands of 2nd respondent. Hence, continuation of 2 1992 supp (1) SCC 335 6 proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that petitioners herein entered into an agreement only for the purpose of availing loan, as the SIBIL score of A.1 is high they could get good amount. After entering into MOU and even after clearance of loan amount, petitioners did not re- register the land in favour of 2nd respondent and cheated the 2nd respondent which caused grave prejudice to him. As such, the said issue requires trial. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss this criminal petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, the case is of the year 2016 and charge sheet is filed in the year 2018. There are allegations and counter allegations and both parties filed civil cases against each other. The only contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that 2nd respondent executed registered sale deed in favour of petitioners herein and even after executing registered sale deed and even after giving undertaking that he will vacate the suit property, falsely filed criminal case and the 7 undertaking given by the 2nd respondent shows that it was given in the year 2015. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has sold the subject property for Rs.1,40,00,000/- in favour of petitioners herein and he registered the said property in their favour, after receiving total sale consideration. As there was no accommodation available for the 2nd respondent, he requested the purchasers to allow him to stay in the subject property till 30.06.2015. As such, 2nd respondent was allowed to stay in the subject property and that he gave undertaking that he will deliver vacant possession. Even according to the undertaking the registered sale deed is of the year 2013 and there is no averment to show why 2nd respondent is in the property even after receiving total sale consideration and MOU entered into by the parties. According to the investigating officer, there is MOU between the parties and the same shows that after repayment of loan amount, the petitioners herein have to register the property in favour of 2nd respondent. The investigating officer has also collected the details of three transactions of M.C.Anil Kumar for an amount of Rs.14,40,000/-, G.Raju-Rs.15,00,000/- and B.Venkatesh-Rs.15,00,000/-. The investigating officer has also collected certified copies of sale deed and addressed letter to the Branch Manager for collecting details of B.Srinivasa Raju in 8 whose account Rs.15,00,000/- was credited through RTGS and K.Sadhak Kumar, in whose account Rs.15,00,000/- was credited through RTGS, to show that loan amount is equally shared. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the property is registered by the 2nd respondent after receiving total sale consideration. Both parties have filed civil suits for their respective rights and in the present case, there is criminal breach of trust and there are also other averments which require trial. As such, there are no merits and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date : 05.11.2024 Rds