Telangana High Court
Venigalla Aditya vs State Of Telangana on 1 June, 2021
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.5474, 5561, 5611, 5612, 5613, 5628 & 5629 OF 2020
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.3481, 3483, 3489 AND 3505 OF 2021
COMMON ORDER:
All these matters arise out of one and same Crime viz., FIR
No.580 of 2020 and the same are filed seeking different reliefs which
can be divided into three categories viz.,
(i) Criminal Petition No.5474 of 2020 is filed by the petitioners
under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1971 (for
short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Crime No.580/2020 of
Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate against them.
The petitioners therein are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the said crime.
The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 420, 406 and
506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section - 5
of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999 (for short 'Act, 1999'). Accused No.3 also
filed Criminal Petition No.5561 of 2020 seeking for the similar relief.
ii) Criminal Petition Nos.5611, 5612, 5613, 5628 and 5629 of
2020 are filed by the respective petitioners seeking to set aside the
common order dated 27.10.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3185, 3187,
3188, 3186 and 3184 of 2020 in Cr.No.580/20 by the learned
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at
L.B. Nagar and for consequential direction to the Police to de-freeze
the bank accounts of the respective petitioners bearing Saving's Bank
2 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
A/c No.007601543293 of ICICI Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch,
Hyderabad; C.C. Account bearing No.00210350005231 of HDFC
Bank, Lakdikapool Branch, C.A. Account bearing
No.048861900000203 with YES Bank, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad,
C.A. Account bearing No.915020028508459 with AXIS Bank,
Jubilee Hills & ESCRO Account bearing No.920020000405725 with
Axis Bank, Jubilee Hills; account bearing Nos.50100235562901 &
50200015709171 of HDFC Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad;
C.C. Account bearing No.000681300004214 of YES Bank,
Somajiguda and C.A. Account bearing No.4437008700000210 of
Punjab National Bank, Large Corporate, Banjara Hills Branch; and
Account bearing No.62135499684 of State Bank of India,
Gunfoundry & C.A. Account bearing No.63049532963 with State
Bank of India, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad, respectively. In
fact, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge while dismissing
Crl.M.P.Nos.3185, 3187 and 3188 of 2020, allowed Crl.M.P.
Nos.3184 and 3186 of 2020 in part, wherein while continuing the
freezing, the banks of Bhavya Cements and KR Polymers were
permitted to disburse or honour the payments in respect of any
statutory outgoing which are payable by the said companies, such as
GST, Electricity and Salaries to the employees excluding the salaries
or any incentives payable to the Directors of the said Companies.
iii) Writ Petition Nos.3481, 3483, 3489 and 3505 of 2021 are
filed by the respective petitioners under Article - 226 of the
3 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the
notices dated 05.02.2021 issued by respondent No.3 pursuant to
which, the bank accounts of respective petitioners have been frozen
allegedly in relation to an investigation in FIR 580 of 2020 dated
21.09.2020 of Bachupally Police Station, to which the petitioners are
neither connected, nor concerned with, and without any notice to the
petitioners as illegal.
2. Heard Mr. M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. M.V. Pratap Kumar, Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned
counsel representing Mr. A. Shravya Murthy and Mr. Aravala
Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel in Crl.P. Nos.5474, 5561, 5611,
5612, 5613, 5628 & 5629 of 2020 and W.P. Nos.3481, 3483, 3489 &
3505 of 2021 respectively, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1 - State, and Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy,
learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. H. Srinivasa Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 - de facto complainant and also Mr. S.
Ram Mohan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
3. Criminal Petition No.5474 of 2020 is the leading case as it is
filed seeking to quash the proceedings against accused Nos.1, 2 and 4.
Thus, for convenience sake, this petition will be taken up for
discussion.
4. ALLEGATIONS AS PER THE COMPLAINT: As per
the complaint lodged by de facto complainant - Bhogaraju
4 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Laxminarayana Murthy, respondent No.2 herein, the allegations
against the petitioners herein are as follows:
i) Respondent No.2 is in real-estate business.
ii) In the year 2017, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to him and
informed him that land to an extent of Acs.200.00 is in their
possession situated at Bachupally, Dundigal and Bourampet Villages.
They are in need of money. Therefore, they requested respondent
No.2 to deposit cash in their Company that will be used for "Bhavya
Projects" as investment, so that they will pay half-yearly returns.
iii) They took respondent No.2 to Dundigal and shown the land
in their possession and asked him to pay money, on which respondent
No.2 replied that he will not give cash, but however, he will transfer
the amount into their bank account.
iv) After some days, the petitioners herein and other accused
went to respondent No.2 and informed him that they are working in
real-estate field as well as doing business in cement. If respondent
No.2 deposits amount in their company, they will pay him half-yearly
returns @ 4% per annum. When he questioned With regard to the
guarantee for the amount to be deposited, they replied that if they do
not pay half-yearly returns, he can take possession of their land and
whenever they return money on the existing market value, get
transferred the land in their favour.
5 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
iv) Accordingly, all the accused made him to believe the said
version and basing on the said promise and belief, respondent No.2
paid them an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs
only) by way of cheque bearing No.000014 to accused and the same
was deposited into the account bearing No.35655648833 on
01.11.2017.
v) After six months, when respondent No.2 asked the accused
with regard to the returns, they told him to wait.
vi) After some days, respondent No.2 again asked the accused
with regard to payment of the returns, the accused replied that accused
No.1 is contesting in the elections and after closure of the same, they
will pay returns to him.
vii) After completion of the elections, when respondent No.2
asked the accused, they replied that they do not have money now and
they cannot give him money. Then, respondent No.2 requested the
accused to register the land in his favour, for which the accused
requested him to wait for some more days.
viii) In June, 2020, respondent No.2 again requested the
accused to register the land, on which the accused threatened him
stating that if he demands money again or land, they will kill him.
ix) On enquiry, respondent No.2 came to know that the
accused have mesmerized him to deposit the said amount into their
6 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
account and without returning the same and without registering land
in his favour as promised by them, postponed the matter in one-way
or the other, and thereby cheated him.
x) Respondent No.2 came to know that the accused have
received money from other 100 persons and got deposited Rs.100
Crores from them and also cheated them without returning the said
amounts.
With the said allegations, respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint
with Station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station, who in turn
registered a case in Crime No.580 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences.
5. CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITONERS:
i) Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the contents
of the complaint would submit that the said complaint lacks the
ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Respondent
No.2 is trying to criminalize the civil disputes.
ii) He would further submit that M/s. Bhavya Constructions
Private Limited, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the Company',
has entered into an agreement to purchase on 25.12.2017 with M/s.
Venkata Praneeth Developers Private Limited (for short 'VPDPL') in
respect of land admeasuring Acs.200, situated at Dundigal and
Bowrampet Villages. Some portion of the said land was owned by the
said Company, and for the remaining portion, as per the recitals of the
7 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
said agreement, the Company is authorized to represent the land
owners. In relation to the said transaction, VPDPL agreed to pay a
total amount of Rs.1,19,00,000/- per acre to the Company and the
land owners.
iii) The said Company received various amounts from VPDPL
which includes cheques from various individuals on behalf of VPDPL
for a total sum of Rs.53,05,40,000/-, and about Rs.28.13 Crores was
paid directly to the land owners. The said company and other land
owners have registered about Acs.85.00 of land in favour of VPDPL
and its nominees. Against the receipt of the said amounts, various
sale deeds were executed by the Company and the land owners in
favour of relevant purchasers.
iv) He would further submit that in relation to the said
agreement to purchase, certain disputes have arisen between the
Company and VPDPL, and the said disputes are still pending.
Despite negotiations, there has been no resolution of the disputes till
now.
v) At the behest of VPDPL, respondent No.2 lodged the
present complaint with a mala fide intention to settle civil disputes
between the Company and VPDPL. It is an abuse of process of law.
vi) As per the FIR, the Police, Bachupally Police Station have
received the complaint dated 21.09.2020 from respondent No.2 at
17:30 hours and it was registered immediately. About 15-20 Police
8 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
went to the house of the petitioners on 22.09.2020 at about 6.00 A.M.
without any prior notice and threatened and coerced them to come to
the Cyberabad Commissionerate Office. Accordingly, the petitioners
went to the said office and under the threat of arrest, they were made
to discuss the disputes between the Company and VPDPL, which is
not the complainant and settle the matter forthwith. The police have
also threatened them that if they fail to settle the dispute, further cases
will be registered against them.
vii) e-mail dated 14.02.2019 sent to the Company by Dinesh
Sappidi, Director of VPDPL, would reflect the payments made by it to
the petitioners including the cheques in dispute. Accused No.1 was
also made to sign a letter dated 22.09.2020 at around 9.00 P.M. after
accused Nos.1 and 2 spent almost 14 hours at the Cyberabad
Commissionerate. Thus, the police have registered the present crime
at the instance of VPDPL.
viii) There is no breach of trust or cheating by the accused at
the inception and there is no inducement. Therefore, the essential
ingredients of Sections - 406 and 402 of IPC are lacking in the
complaint. Like-wise, the contents of the complaint lack the
ingredients of Section - 5 of the Act, 1999. Respondent No.2 has not
entrusted with any property with the accused with any particular
direction in which they have to discharge their trust, nor the accused
have converted any such property to their own use and, therefore, it
cannot be said that any offence under Section - 406 of IPC is attracted.
9 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
ix) There are no particulars of cheque, date, time and place
where respondent No.2 is allegedly subjected to intimidation, in the
complaint.
x) Accused No.4 is a household and she is not the Director of
the Company while accused No.5, who is daughter of accused N.1, is
residing in USA since 2016. Without verifying the same, the police
have included their names as accused in the present crime at the
instance of respondent No.2 and VPDPL.
xi) The allegations made in the complaint are of absurd and
inherently improbable in the present case. There is no reasonable and
prudent basis on which a sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused exists. The allegations made in the complaint do not disclose
any commission of offence and no case can be made out against the
accused on the said basis. The accused do not have any questionable
antecedents and they hail from respectable families. Thus,
continuation of proceedings in the present crime will damage their
reputation in the society as well as in the business.
xii) In support of above contentions, the learned counsel has
placed reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court.
With the above said contentions, the learned counsel sought to quash
the proceedings against accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.580 of 2020
and for a consequential direction to defreeze the aforesaid accounts of
respective petitioners.
10 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2:
i) Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, would submit that the
contents of the complaint dated 21.09.2020 constitute a cognizable
offence and, therefore, the police have registered the present crime
and the investigation is in progress. The investigation has to go on in
the said crime. The petitioners instead of co-operating with the
Investigating Officer approached this Court by way of filing the above
petitions. There are several factual aspects to be investigated into by
the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
ii) The promise made by the accused, the date, payment of
amount, account number, cheque number etc. are all specifically
mentioned in the complaint and so also payment of half-yearly returns
@ 4%. The contents of the complaint would constitute the offences
alleged against the accused. Just because the disputes are civil in
nature, the proceedings in the present crime cannot be quashed and the
investigation cannot be interdicted at the initial stage.
iii) The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the
principle laid down in various judgments of the Apex Court in support
of his contentions.
0With the above contentions, the learned senior counsel sought to
dismiss all the petitions.
11 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
7. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:
i) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, on
instructions, would submit that the complaint dated 21.09.2020 lodged
by respondent No.2 constitutes cognizable offence. The police by
following the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari
v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, more particularly, paragraph No.111,
registered the present crime against the accused and investigation is in
progress. The Investigating Officer has to consider several factual
aspects during the course of investigation.
ii) He would further submit that there are specific allegations
against the accused with regard to the promise, receipt of money and
percentage etc. Thus, there is inducement by the petitioners herein.
iii) The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that
punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioners herein is
seven years or below years and therefore, the Investigating Officer has
already invoked the procedure laid down under Section - 41A of
Cr.P.C. by way of serving a notice on the petitioners. Having
received the said notice, the petitioners have already submitted their
explanation and the same would be considered. The petitioners
instead of co-operating with the Investigating Officer approached this
Court by way of filing the above petitions.
With the said contentions, the learned Public Prosecutor sought to
dismiss the petitions.
(2014) 2 SCC 1
12 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:
8. The above rival submissions would reveal that as per the
contents of the complaint, the de facto complainant is in real-estate
business. In 2017, accused Nos.1 to 3 approached respondent No.2
and informed him about availability of Acs.200 of land with them.
They have requested respondent No.2 to invest with their Company in
real-estate, cement and other businesses. Thus, the petitioners and
other accused have induced him. With the said inducement, he has
paid Rs.25.00 lakhs vide cheque No.000014 into the account of
accused and thereafter the said amount was deposited into the account
of Company on 02.11.2017.
9. It is relevant to note that in the complaint dated 21.09.2020,
there is no mention by respondent No.2 that there is an agreement
between him and the petitioners and other accused or the said
Company either with regard to deposit of the said amount and
payment of half-yearly returns @ 4% and on their failure to pay the
same, they would register land in his favour. It is also relevant to
mention that respondent No.2 has not mentioned that he has verified
the documents with regard to the title of accused in respect of the said
Acs.200 of land. As stated above, respondent No.2 is also in real-
estate business, even then he has not mentioned in the complaint that
he has verified the title of the petitioners and other accused and also
the said Company in respect of the said land of Acs.200. Without any
agreement, the contention of respondent No.2 that he has deposited
13 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
the said amount of Rs.25.00 lakhs with the petitioners and other
accused on the promise that they would pay half-yearly returns @ 4%
is unbelievable. His statement was also recorded by the police under
Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. But, respondent No.2 has not filed a single
scrap of paper to show that the petitioners and other accused of the
Company have requested him to deposit the said amount of Rs.25.00
lakhs with a promise to pay half yearly returns @ 4%. There is no
mention as to in whose presence the said transaction had taken place.
10. It is also relevant to note that when the amount was
deposited on 02.11.2017, half-yearly returns have to be paid by the
petitioners by April or May, 2018. According to him, the accused
have not paid the same and he has waited till 21.09.2020. The only
explanation offered by respondent No.2 with regard to the said delay
in lodging the complaint is that he has requested the accused to pay
half-yearly returns or in default to register land in his favour and that
the accused informed him that accused No.1 is contesting in the
Elections and after that they would complete the same. Thereafter,
when respondent No.2 requested the accused, they threatened him to
kill. That is why there was delay in lodging the complaint.
11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
Assembly Elections were held in December, 2018 itself. Thus, the
petitioner has waited till 21.09.2020 and lodged the above complaint
with Bachupally Police Station, who in turn registered the present
crime for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and others and
14 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
thereafter freezed the accounts of several companies on the ground
that they are sister concerns in Crime No.580 of 2020, and as part of
investigation, the Investigating Officer freezed the said accounts to
protect the interests of respondent No.2 and other victims.
12. It is also relevant to note that freezing of accounts was done
on 22.09.2020 itself in connection with the said Crime No.580 of
2020. Therefore, the said companies whose accounts were frozen
have filed applications under Sections - 451 and 452 of Cr.P.C.
seeking to de-freeze their accounts and the said petitions were
dismissed by the Court below. As against the said orders, criminal
petitions have been filed. The said facts would reveal that there was
abnormal delay in lodging the complaint by respondent No.2
13. It is also relevant to note that in the complaint itself,
respondent No.2 has stated that the petitioners herein and other
accused have cheated about 100 persons and collected Rs.100.00
Crores towards deposits and they are not paying half-yearly returns to
them as promised and the petitioners and other accused also cheated
them. A perusal of Case-Diary (Part-II) would reveal that the
Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of respondent No.2,
Mrs. Ch. Madhavi Latha W/o Ch.V.S.S. Jagannadha Rao, M/s. G.K.
Constructions, a partnership firm represented by its Managing Partner,
Mr. Jupally Satyanarayana Rao, Mr. Vegesna Venkata Rama
Krishnam Raju, M/s. Anirudh Agro Farms Ltd., represented by its
15 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Partner Mr. Konda Reddy Ravinder Reddy, Mr. Kamaraju Narendra
Kumar, Mr. Ruddaraju Prudhvi Raju, Mr. Mudunuri Naga Raju, Mrs.
Erla Sasi Kala, Mr. Sreegiriraju Jagan Mohan Rao, Mr. Kondadi
Naveen Kumar, Mrs. Vegesna Devi. Their statements are almost in
the same lines. The amount, cheque number is differed. Allegations
are almost same. None of their statements reflects about the written
agreement among the accused, the Company and the alleged victims
including respondent No.2. There is no written agreement with regard
to payment of alleged half-yearly returns @ 4% to respondent No.2 or
other victims.
14. From the above discussion, it is clear that the aforesaid
persons paid the amount to the Company without there-being any
written agreement between them and the Company with regard to the
deposit, percentage of returns and in default of payment, registration
of land in their favour. Thus, the entire transactions are oral. Except
making the payment through cheque, there is no other nexus among
the Company, respondent No.2 and other alleged victims. In view of
the same, it is relevant to note that according to the petitioners, they
have some extent of land in Dundigal and Bowrampet Villages.
During the course of their business, they have entered into an
agreement to purchase on 25.12.2017 with VPDPL in relation to
Acs.200 of land. Some portion of the said land was owned by the
Company and remaining portion is with the land owners, and the
Company was authorized to represent the said land owners. The said
16 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
VPDPL agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,00,000/- per acre to the
Company and also to the land owners. Accordingly, VPDPL has paid
an amount of Rs.53,05,40,000/- to the Company and about Rs.28.13
Crores was paid directly to the land owners. The said Company and
the land owners have registered about Acs.85.00 of land in favour of
VPDPL and its nominees. As against the receipt of the said amounts,
various sale deeds were executed by the Company and the land
owners in favour of relevant purchasers. In proof of the same, the
petitioners have filed some copies of registered sale deeds. The
petitioners have also filed copy of e-mail dated 14.02.2019 issued by
Mr. Dinesh Sappidi, Director of VPDPL duly enclosing an Excel
Sheet containing the details of transfer of amounts. By referring to
the said information in the Excel Sheet, learned counsel for the
petitioners would submit that an amount of Rs.4,50,00,000 was paid
to the Company on 31.10.2017 through various cheques and one of
the cheques relates to the one mentioned in the FIR for an amount of
Rs.25.00 lakhs. In proof of the same, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has filed copy of the said e-mail and said Excel Sheet.
15. In the counter filed by respondents in the petitions filed by
the petitioners to defreeze their accounts and in the written
instructions, the police have mentioned the details of investors who
made payments through cheques etc., in a tabular form which are as
under:
17 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Sl. Cheque
Name Cheque No. Bank Amount
No Date
1. Bhogaraju Lakshmi- 000014 25-10-2017 Andhra 2500000
narayana Murthy
2. Madhavi Latha Chelikani 000002 02-11-2017 Andhra 2500000
000003 16-12-2017 Andhra 1000000
17-02-2018 Andhra 3000000
3. Krishnam Raju 876034 17-02-2018 SBI 2500000
511746/ 17-02-2018 SBI 500000
Part
4. 1. Sreegirirajuagan
Mohan Rao 28-02-2018 HDFC 525000
2. Sagi Santosh Varma 000004
3. P.V. Sita Jayalaxmi
5. Sasi Kala Erla HDFCR5201 HDFC 250000
7112258656 26-10-2017
821/Part
6. 1. Mudunuri Naga Raju 13-11-2017 Standard 120300
2. Vegesna Devi 000038 Chartered
3.Ruddaraju Prudhvi Raju
7. Anirudh Agro Farms 864234 17-12-2017 50000000
8. K. Narendra Kumar 24-10-2017 KVB 73143300
9. Mudunuri Nagaraju SCBL00360 03-11-2017 350000
10. Sasi Kala Erla 22-11-2017 HDFCR5 25000
20171122
58656821
The police have also mentioned about freezing of the above said
accounts on the ground that if not freezes the funds, in all probability,
might have diverted to foreign accounts. Once siphoned off from the
banks, it is highly difficult to get back the amount and finally the
interests of victims would be severely affected. The said details are as
follows:
S. Name of the Account holder in Amount in Rs. Sent
No. which the petitioner has Bank Account Number by Bhavya
transferred the amount Constructions Pvt Ltd
1 914020001908501 Rs.798446.00
SCR Enterprises Axis Bank
2 Laxmi Sri Transport 35735981250 SBI Rs.10,00,000.00
3 Sri Lahari transport 34189810519 SBI Rs.25,00,000.00
4 Narmadariya Laboratories 50200021321924 Rs.50,00,000.00
Pvt Ltd Union Bank of India
18 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
16. In view of the above, the learned counsel for the
petitioners filed copies of sale deeds bearing document Nos.18772 of
2018, dated 24.08.2018 executed by the Company in favour of Sri
Sreegiriraju Jagan Mohan Rao and 2 others; document No.22086 of
2018, dated 05.10.2018 executed by Sri G.B. Rajendra Prasad in
favour of Sri Indukury Vijay Raju and others, document No.22419 of
2018 dated 10.10.2018 executed by Sri V. Nagender Rao in favour of
Sri Mudunuri Naga Raju and others; document No.9307 of 2019,
dated 20.04.2019 executed by the Company in favour of Sri Kamaraju
Narendra Kumar; document No.22422 of 2018, dated 10.10.2018
executed by Kum. Ramachandrula Ramyad in favour of Sri Kamaraju
Narendra Kumar; and document No.13223 of 2018 dated 15.06.2018
executed by the Company in favour of Smt. Erla Sasi Kala; and also
registered Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney vide
document No.1177 of 2019, dated 17.01.2019 executed by the
Company in favour of Sri Kamaraju Narendra Kumar.
17. A perusal of the aforesaid copies of sale deeds and the e-
mails would reveal that the Company and other land owners have
executed documents in favour of respective purchasers. According to
the petitioners, the said sale deeds are pursuant to the above
agreement to purchase dated 27.12.2017 entered between the
Company and VPDPL. A perusal of the said agreement would also
reveal that the Company was authorized to represent on behalf of the
land owners and the agreed sale consideration shall be paid by
19 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
VPDPL as and when directed by the Company either in favour of the
land owners or in favour of such persons, whom the Company
nominates for receiving the sale consideration. Other terms are also
specifically mentioned therein. The above said persons in whose
favour the sale deeds were registered did not disclose the fact in their
statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. Thus, there is
suppression of fact by both respondent No.2 and the above said
persons viz., Mr. Sreegiriraju Jagan Mohan Rao, Mr. Indukury Vijay
Raju, Mr. Mudunuri Naga Raju, Mr. Kamaraju Narendra Kumar; and
Mrs. Erla Sasi Kala. Their names are specifically mentioned by the
police stating that they are the victims. But, the said allegation is
contrary to the above said sale deeds and e-mails filed by the
petitioners.
18. As stated above, the entire transaction between the
Company and respondent No.2 and other alleged victims are oral.
Respondent No.2 and others have not filed any document to show that
they have deposited the said amount with the Company and the
accused have promised them to pay half-yearly returns @ 4%. As
discussed above, except the said payment through cheque, there is no
other piece of evidence produced by respondent No.2 and other
alleged victims to show that it is a deposit and the petitioners / other
accused have agreed to pay half-yearly returns @ 4% and in the event
of their failure, to register land in their favour by the petitioners. Even
the details of number of victims, the amount alleged to have collected
20 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
by the accused are also differs from the complaint and the statement
of respondent No.2 and other victims recorded under Section - 161 of
Cr.P.C.
19. Respondent No.2 and other alleged victims in their
statements specifically mentioned that they are also in the real-estate
business. According to them, without there being any agreement or
written document, they have paid huge amount to the accused herein.
According to them, it is probable and the police having believed the
same, registered the aforesaid crime. As stated above, even according
to the police, respondent No.2 and other alleged victims, there are so-
many victims and the Company and the accused have collected about
Rs.100.00 Crores, but they have not come before the police by way of
lodging any complaint.
20. M/s. G.K. Constructions, a partnership firm, represented by
its Managing Partner, Mr. Jupally Satyanarayana Rao, whose
statement was recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.580 of 2020 as a victim and witness, has lodged a complaint with
police, Ramachandrapuram, who in turn registered a case in Crime
No.114 of 2021 against the petitioners herein with the very same
allegations and for the same offences.
21. In view of the same, the only question for consideration by
this Court is whether the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the
complaint in Crime No.580 of 2020 on the file of Bachupally Police
21 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Station are absurd and inherently improbable and the said FIR is liable
to be quashed by this Court in the present petitions. The other
question that falls for consideration by this Court is, whether the
contents of the complaint constitute the offences alleged against the
petitioners.
22. In view of the above, it is relevant to extract the provisions
of Sections - 420, 406 and 506 of IPC and Sections - 2 (b), 2 (c) and 5
of the Act, 1999, which are 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 imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.--Whoever
commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both."
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--Whoever
commits, the offence of criminal intimidation 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
1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
22 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both."
"2(b) "deposit" means the deposit of a sum of money either in
lumpsum or instalments made with a financial establishment for
a fixed period, for interest or return in any kind;"
"2(c) "Financial Establishments" means any person or group
of individuals accepting deposit under any scheme or
arrangement or in any other manner but does not include a
corporation or a co-operative society owned or controlled by
any State Government or the Central Government or a banking
company as defined under clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949."
"5. Penalty for default. - Where any financial establishment
defaults in the return of the deposit either in cash or kind or
defaults in the payment of interest on the deposit as agreed
upon, every person responsible for the management of the
affairs of the financial establishment including the promoter,
Manager or Member of the financial establishment shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years and with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh and
such financial establishment shall also be liable for fine which
may extend to rupees five lakh.".
23. The Apex Court in B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee2 had
an occasion to deal with the complaint filed for the offences under
Sections - 415 and 420 of IPC, and held that for the purpose of
establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to
show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time
of making promise or representation. The Apex Court relying on the
principle laid down by it in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [2000
. (2007) 13 SCC 107
23 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Cri.L.J.824]; Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. [(2005) 10
SCC 228]; and Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, New Delhi
[2003 Cri.L.J.3041] held that in the absence of the said two essential
ingredients for the offence under Sections - 415 and 420 of IPC,
investigation in the crime cannot go on. The relevant paragraphs in
the said three judgments observed by the Apex Court in paragraph
Nos.15, 16 and 17 are relevant which are extracted as under:
"15. In G. Sagar Suri, this Court opined:
8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be
exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the
High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is
to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature,
has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available
in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a
serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on
the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction
under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.
Therein, having regard to the fact that a criminal complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had
already been pending, the criminal complaint under Section
406/420 found to be an abuse of the due process of law.
16. In Anil Mahajan, this Court held:
8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. Mere use
of the expression "cheating" in the complaint is of no
consequence. Except mention of the words "deceive" and
24 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
"cheat" in the complaint filed before the Magistrate and
"cheating" in the complaint filed before the police, there is
no averment about the deceit, cheating or fraudulent
intention of the accused at the time of entering into MOU
wherefrom it can be inferred that the accused had the
intention to deceive the complainant to pay. According to
the complainant, a sum of Rs. 3,05,39,086 out of the total
amount of Rs.3,38,62,860 was paid leaving balance of Rs.
33,23,774. We need not go into the question of the
difference of the amounts mentioned in the complaint
which is much more than what is mentioned in the notice
and also the defence of the accused and the stand taken in
reply to notice because the complainant's own case is that
over rupees three crores was paid and for balance, the
accused was giving reasons as above-noticed. The
additional reason for not going into these aspects is that a
civil suit is pending inter se the parties for the amounts in
question.
17. In Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati, this Court opined:
It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for
establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is
required to show that the accused had fraudulent or
dishonest intention at the time of making promise or
representation. From his making failure to keep promise
subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the
beginning that is at the time when the promise was made
cannot be presumed. It is seen from the records that the
exemption certificate contained necessary conditions
which were required to be complied with after importation
of the machine. Since the GCS could not comply with it,
therefore, it rightly paid the necessary duties without
taking advantage of the exemption certificate. The conduct
of the GCS clearly indicates that there was no fraudulent
or dishonest intention of either the GCS or the appellants
in their capacities as office-bearers right at the time of
making application for exemption. As there was absence
of dishonest and fraudulent intention, the question of
25 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
committing offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code does not arise."
24. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand3, the Apex
Court held that when a dispute essentially of a civil nature is given the
cloak of a criminal offence and if a civil remedy is available, the High
Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of Court.
25. In The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar4 the
Apex Court held that while exercising powers under Section - 482 of
Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, shall scan the entire facts to
find out thrust of allegations.
26. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.5, the Apex
Court while dealing with breach of contract and cheating and also the
powers of High Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., held that a
complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process
of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been
initiated with maladies/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause
harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
It was further held that there is a growing tendency in business circles
to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously
on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of
. (2013) 11 SCC 673
. (2019) 5 SCC 570
. (2006) 6 SCC 736
26 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There
is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a
criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement.
Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which, do not involve
any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal
prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. It further held that
while no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented
from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who
initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the
criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil
law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such
misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One
positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary
prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their
power under Section - 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where they
discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the
complainant. It was further held that mere breach of contract cannot
give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or
dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction,
that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a
person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent
or dishonest Intention at the time of making the promise. From his
mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable
27 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise
cannot be presumed.
27. In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), Department of Home6, the Apex Court observed that there is
nothing in the words of Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which restricts the
exercise of the power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of
court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. The Apex
Court has also considered the parameters laid down by the Apex
Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, which are 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.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(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.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
. (2019) 11 SCC 706
1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335
28 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the Act
concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing
efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
One of the said parameters are that where the allegations made in the
FIR or complaint are so 'absurd and inherently improbable' on the basis
of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. With the said
findings, the Apex Court has quashed the FIR registered for the
offence under Section - 406 of IPC.
28. The Apex Court in Dhruv Gurjar4 also referred to the
guidelines laid down by it in Parbatbhai AAhir v. State of Gujarat
[(2017) 9 SCC 641 ], which are as under:
"(1) Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure preserves
the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse
of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
The provision does not confer new powers. It only
recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High
Court.
29 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
(2) The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to
quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding
on the ground that a settlement has been arrived at
between the offender and the victim is not the same as the
invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding
an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320
Code of Criminal Procedure. The power to quash Under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
(3) In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding
or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its
jurisdiction Under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power.
(4) While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide
ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (i) to secure the
ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
any court.
(5) the decision as to whether a complaint or first
information report should be quashed on the ground that
the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves
ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and
no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulate.
(6) In the exercise of the power Under Section 482 and
while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled,
the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences
involving mental depravity or offences such as murder,
rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though
the victim or the family of the victim have settled the
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in
nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded
30 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
on the overriding element of public interest in punishing
persons for serious offences.
(7) As distinguished from serious offences, there may be
criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned.
(8) Criminal cases involving offences which arise from
commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar
transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
(9) In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceeding if in view of the compromise between the
disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause
oppression and prejudice; and
(10) There is yet an exception to the principle set out in
Propositions (8) and (9) above. Economic offences
involving the financial and economic well-being of the
State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court
would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance."
29. As discussed above, as per Section - 2 (b) of the Act, 1999,
deposit of a sum of money either in lump sum or instalments made
with a financial establishment for a fixed period, for interest or return
in any kind. It is trite to note that in the entire complaint or in the
statement of respondent No.2 and other alleged victims recorded
31 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C., there is no mention about the fixed
period of deposit of money. Thus, the contents of the complaint are
lacking the ingredients of Sections - 2 (b) and 2 (c) of the Act, 1999.
Section - 5 of the Act, 1999 deals with 'penalty for default', and as per
which, where any financial establishment defaults in the return of the
deposit either in cash or kind or defaults in the payment of interest on
the deposit as agreed upon, every person responsible for the
management of the affairs of the financial establishment including the
promoter, Manager or Member of the financial establishment is liable
for punishment. As per the said provision, one of the requirements
is there should be an agreement with regard to payment of
interest on the deposit. As stated above, except oral allegations in
the complaint, respondent No.2 and other alleged victims have not
filed any scrap of paper with regard to the said agreement. Entire
transaction is only oral.
30. Whereas, the petitioners herein have filed copy of
agreement to purchase dated 25.12.2017 entered between the
Company and VPDPL for the purpose of purchase of land on the
terms specifically agreed thereunder, and copies of the sale deeds
executed by owners of the land including the Company in favour of
alleged victims including Mr. Sreegiriraju Jagan Mohan Rao, Mr.
Indukury Vijay Raju, Mr. Mudunuri Naga Raju, Mr. Kamaraju
Narendra Kumar; and Mrs. Erla Sasi Kala. The said alleged victims
have suppressed about the sale deeds executed in their favour by the
32 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Company pursuant to the agreement to purchase dated 25.12.2017.
Thus, there is clear suppression of fact by respondent No.2 and the
other alleged victims. The contents of the complaint and the
statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. of respondent
No.2 and other alleged victims lacks the ingredients of criminal
breach of trust as defined under Sections - 405 of IPC and the
cheating as defined under Section - 415 of IPC. The contents of the
complaint are lacking the said offences. Respondent No.2 failed to
establish that there is inducement by the petitioners at the time of
inception itself. As discussed supra, though respondent No.2 and
other alleged victims claim to be in real-estate business, they have not
obtained any document to show that the petitioners and other accused
have induced them and obtained such deposits with a promise to pay
4% half-yearly returns. Thus, the allegations made by respondent
No.2 in the complaint are 'absurd' and 'inherently improbable' in
nature.
31. The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The
State of Maharashtra8 has categorically held that quashing criminal
proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not
disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If
allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which
cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court
to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case
. AIR 2019 SC 847
33 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in
conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and
consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on
oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be
no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be
available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might
lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at
threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether
averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or
not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that
prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents.
Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in
trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts
to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made
on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only
on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature.
If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie
made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
32. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh9, the Apex Court referring to the earlier
judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts
in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to
. AIR 2021 SC 931
34 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with
extreme caution.
33. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v.
State of Maharashtra10, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid
certain conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High
Courts under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the
Constitution of India, which are as under:
"....
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare
cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its
application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not to be confused with the norm which has been
formulated in the context of the death penalty, as
explained previously by this Court);
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of
which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at
the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping
the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of
the State operate in two specific spheres of activities.
The inherent power of the court is,
however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or
prevent the above of the process by Section 482
Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and
. AIR 2021 SC 1918
35 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do
not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature to
pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or
that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or
after investigation, if the investigating officer finds
that there is no substance in the application made by
the complainant, the investigating officer may file an
appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the
court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks
fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing
and the self-restraint imposed by law, more
particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in
the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal
(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the
FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to
consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and
is not required to consider on merits whether the
allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and
the court has to permit the investigating agency/police
to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
34. As stated above, in Bhajan Lal7, the Apex Court way-back
in 1992 itself categorically held that criminal proceedings can be
36 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
quashed where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable in
nature. Like-wise, in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar8, it was held by the
Apex Court that in a case where complaint did not disclose any
offence, or was vexatious or oppressive, criminal proceedings can be
quashed. According to this Court, in view of the above discussion,
the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint dated
21.09.2020 are 'absurd in nature and inherently improbable' and the
same are civil in nature. There is also suppression of fact by
respondent No.2 and other alleged victims. Further, there was
abnormal delay in lodging the complaint by respondent No.2. There
is no explanation, much less plausible / satisfactory explanation by
him for such abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. At the cost of
repetition, there is no agreement with regard to the alleged deposit and
payment of half-yearly returns @ 4%, and in default, registration of
land by the petitioners and other accused. Thus, the contents of the
complaint lacks the ingredients of offences alleged against the
petitioners herein. It is relevant to note that accused No.4 is not a
Director of the Company and she is only a house-hold. Accused No.5
is daughter of accused No.1 and she is residing in USA from 2016
onwards. In proof of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has filed copy of details of travel by Accused No.5 which reveals the
same.
35. It is also relevant to note that on the complaint lodged by
Jupally Satyanarayana Rao, who was also examined by the police
37 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. in the above crime, lodged a complaint
with police, Ramachandrapuram, who in turn registered a case in
Crime No.114 of 2021. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that on the same allegations with regard to the very same issue,
there cannot be multiple FIRs. According to him, the accused therein
have also filed a criminal petition and this Court granted stay.
36. As stated above, though there is abnormal delay in lodging
the complaint, the police have registered the case on 21.09.2020 itself.
They have also gone to the house of petitioners on the next day
morning at 6.00 A.M. itself. They have also freezed the accounts of
petitioners on 22.09.2020. They have also registered another crime
vide FIR No.114 of 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that Mr. P. Jagadeshwar, Inspector of Police, has registered
Crime No.580 of 2020 when he was Station House Officer, B
achupally Police Station and on his transfer to Ramachandrapuram
Police Station, he has registered Crime No.114 of 2021 as Station
House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station in active
connivance with the said VPDPL and Jupally Satyanarayana Rao. A
perusal of FIR No.580 of 2020 of Bachupally Police Station and FRI
No.114 of 2021 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station reveals the said
fact. Both the said crimes were registered by the same person as
Station House Officer. Accordingly, the said P. Jagadeeshwar,
Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, are calling
the petitioners and harassing them under the guise of investigation.
38 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
He has arrested accused No.2 in the said crime illegally. Thus, the
said facts would reveal the mala fide intention of respondent No.2 in
converting the civil disputes into criminal proceedings. It is relevant
to note that respondent No.2 did not make any allegation against
VPDPL. Thus, it is a case which falls under one of the categories laid
down by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal7 for quashing the FIR since
the allegations are 'absurd' and 'inherently improbable' in nature.
37. Since it is arrived at by this Court that proceedings can be
quashed in Crime No.580 against the petitioners, the consequential
notices dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Investigating Officer under
Sections - 91 and 102 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.580 of 2020 seeking to
debit freeze the accounts of the respective petitioners in the above
referred writ petitions are also liable to be quashed.
38. Accordingly, Criminal Petition Nos.5474 and 5561 of 2020
are allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.580 of 2020 of
Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, are hereby
quashed against accused Nos.1 to 4 only.
39. Consequently, Criminal Petition Nos.5611, 5612, 5613,
5628 and 5629 of 2020 are allowed setting aside the common order
dated 27.10.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.3185, 3187, 3188, 3186 and
3184 of 2020 in Cr.No.580 of 2020 by the learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.
Accordingly, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.580 of 2020 of
39 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
Bachupally Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, is hereby
directed to issue necessary directions / instructions to the concerned
banks to de-freeze the following bank accounts of the respective
petitioners forthwith:
i) Saving's Bank Account No.007601543293 of ICICI
Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad;
ii) C.C. Account bearing No.00210350005231 of HDFC
Bank, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad;
iii) C.A. Account bearing No.048861900000203 with YES
Bank, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad;
iv) C.A. Account bearing No.915020028508459 of AXIS
Bank, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad;
v) ESCRO Account bearing No.920020000405725 of Axis
Bank, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad;
vi) Accounts bearing No.50100235562901 &
50200015709171 of HDFC Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch,
Hyderabad;
vii) C.C. Account bearing No.000681300004214 of YES
Bank, Somajiguda, Hyderabad;
viii) C.A. Account bearing No.4437008700000210 of Punjab
National Bank, Large Corporate, Banjara Hills Branch,
Hyderabad;
ix) Account bearing No.62135499684 of State Bank of
India, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad; and
x) C.A. Account bearing No.63049532963 of State Bank of
India, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad.
40. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Writ Petition Nos.3481,
3483, 3489 and 3505 of 2021 are allowed setting aside the notices
dated 05.02.2021 issued by respondent No.3 under Sections - 91 and
40 KL,J
Crl.P. No.5474 of 2020 & batch
102 of Cr.P.C. in FIR 580 of 2020 dated 21.09.2020 of Bachupally
Police Station for debit freezing the accounts of respective petitioners.
41. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Criminal / Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
1st June, 2021
Mgr
