Battula Yadaiah, Rr.Dt 7 Otrs., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1156 Tel

                 HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No. 15016 of 2016

ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 to

A-8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings

in C.C.No.363 of 2016 on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, which was taken

cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 447 of

I.P.C.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant (hereinafter referred

to as "the 2nd respondent") filed a private complaint against the

petitioners/accused. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent that he is the

Assistant General Manager of M/s. Thirumala Housing Private

Limited at Malakpet, which was registered under the Companies

Act, and carrying real estate business since 25 years. During the

course of business, his company acquired thousand of acres of land

in Ranga Reddy District and Nalgonda District. In the said process,

his company acquired Ac.7.17 gts., in Sy.Nos.250 and 251 through

registered sale deed vide document No.8318 of 2001. Meanwhile,

the 1st petitioner/A-1 filed O.S.No.2168 of 2007 before the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking perpetual

injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.5.15 gts., in Sy.No.250

of Pasumamula Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. It is further alleged that the 1st petitioner/A-1 had already

alienated the said land to the vendors of the 2nd respondent by name

Vinod Kumar and Bal Reddy, under two registered sale deeds

bearing document Nos.3493 of 1981 and 3494 of 1981. The said

Vinod Kumar and Bal Reddy, executed G.P.A. in favour of one

G.Komaraiah vide document Nos.1078 of 1987 and 18/1988.

Accordingly, the G.P.A. Holder G. Komaraiah, executed sale deed in

favour of the company of the 2nd respondent through registered sale

deed document No.8318 of 2001, dated 12.10.2001 to an extent of

Ac.7.17 gts. When the matter stood thus, the petitioners/A-1 to A-8

once again alienated the same to one Satish Kumar on 16.03.2006

through registered sale deed bearing document No.5971 of 2006 and

thereafter G.P.A. was executed by Satish Kumar in favour of the 1st

petitioner/A-1 vide document No.3351 of 2007 and the 1st petitioner

filed the said suit in the year 2007. When the matter in the civil suit

was coming up for arguments, the subject land was alienated to

third parties through registered sale deed bearing document

No.10937 of 2014, dated 07.08.2014. It is also alleged that the 1st

petitioner/A-1 in collusion with the other petitioners changed the

boundaries by threatening the Manager and Staff of the company

and with fabricated documents created another document, thereby

cheated the company of the 2nd respondent. The learned Magistrate

referred the said private complaint to the Police under Section

156 (3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. The Police,

Hayathnagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1111 of

2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 447 of I.P.C.

and after completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet

against the accused.

Heard and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st

petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land

and he acquired the same from his father B.Sathaiah by way of

inheritance and after the demise of his father, the name of the 1st

petitioner was mutated in revenue records and pattadar pass book

and title deeds were issued in his favour vide patta No.205 and he

has been cultivating the said land peacefully since long back. When

the company of the 2nd respondent tried to interfere with the said

property, the 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.2168 of 2007 and by an order

dated 21.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.532 of 2009 an ad-interim

temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 1st petitioner

restraining M/s. Sri Tirumala Housing Private Limited (company of

the 2nd respondent), his agents, servants and henchmen from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 1st

petitioner over the scheduled property pending disposal of the main

suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent preferred

C.M.A.No.768 of 2009 and the same was dismissed by the

X-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District,

vide judgment dated 23.01.2012. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent

preferred C.R.P.No.2335 of 2012 before this Court and the same was

dismissed. It is further submitted that subsequently the suit filed by

the 1st petitioner was dismissed on 26.11.2015 and aggrieved by the

same, he preferred A.S.No.38 of 2016 before the IV-Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the same was allowed on

04.09.2017. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed S.A.No.1244 of 2017

and this Court, while admitting the Second Appeal, granted interim

suspension of the appellate Court judgment dated 04.09.2017. It is

further submitted that the 2nd respondent company has no locus

standi to file the private complaint against the petitioners and hence

the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to

be quashed.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st

respondent-State opposed the Criminal Petition.

Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would

submit that the civil suit i.e., O.S.No.2168 of 2007 filed by the 1st

petitioner was dismissed on 26.11.2015 and questioning the same,

the 1st petitioner filed A.S.No.38 of 2016, which was allowed by the

1st appellate Court on 04.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd

respondent filed S.A.No.1244 of 2017 before this Court, which is

pending. He further submits that the 1st petitioner is the prime

accused and the other petitioners are his family members and all the

petitioners were charged for fabrication of documents and for selling

the land in question, thereby cheated the 2nd respondent, revenue

officials and registering authorities. He further submits that once

the complaint reveals prima facie case against the petitioners, the

proceedings initiated against them cannot be quashed at this stage

and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition. In support of his

contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ahmad

Ali Quraishi and another v. State of Uttat Pradesh and another

(S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3974 of 2018, dated 30.01.2020).

In Devendra v. State of U.P.1, the Apex Court held as under:

"A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."

In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others2 Hon'ble

the Apex Court has held as under:

"Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.

In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by

(2009) 7 SCC 495

(2011) 7 SCC 59

the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.

The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant by the Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law."

In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and

another3 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:

"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to

(2009) 8 SCC 751

subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."

In the instant case, admittedly, the crime has been registered

in the year 2015. The material available on record discloses that in

the year 2007 itself, 1st petitioner filed O.S.No.2168 of 2007 against

the company of the 2nd respondent for perpetual injunction.

Initially, by an order, dated 21.10.2009, passed in I.A.No.532 of 2009

an ad-interim temporary injunction was granted in favour of the 1st

petitioner restraining the company of the 2nd respondent, his agents,

servants and henchmen from interfering with his peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property pending

disposal of the main suit. Aggrieved by the said order,

C.M.A.No.768 of 2009 has been filed by the company of the 2nd

respondent and the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated

23.01.2012. The record further reveals that O.S.No.2168 of 2007 was

dismissed on 26.11.2015 and questioning the same, the 1st petitioner

filed A.S.No.38 of 2016, which was allowed by the 1st appellate Court

on 04.09.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the company of the 2nd

respondent filed S.A.No.1244 of 2017 before this Court, which is

pending. Thus, it is apparent on the face of the record that both the

parties are litigating against each other before the Civil Court to

establish their respective rights over the schedule property.

Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the

petitioners that the matter appears to be purely civil in nature and

the same virtually converted into criminal proceedings and as such

the party should not be unnecessarily dragged to the Criminal

Court. Applying the principles of the Apex Court in the judgments

referred to above to the facts of this case and for the above said

reasons, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the

criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of

process of Court. Further, it will cause great injustice and

inconvenience to the petitioners, if such proceedings are not

quashed and allowed to be continued.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 to A-8, in

C.C.No.363 of 2016 on the file of the VII-Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, are hereby

quashed.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in

this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 09.04.2021 gkv/Gsn