N Shamgar 2 Ors. vs The State Of Telangana Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 1670 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

                CRIMINAL PETITION No. 726 of 2016

ORDER:

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

A-2 and A-9 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the

proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.148 of 2015 of

Subedari Police Station, Warangal Urban District, which was

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 406, 420,

423 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

The brief facts of the case are as under:-

The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the

IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, alleging that

he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring

Ac.2.02 ½ gts., (10,000 square yards), in Sy.No.55 (old) 292 (New),

situated at Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal

District, having acquired the same along with other properties

through registered sale deed bearing document No.7784 of 2011,

dated 01.11.2011 from his vendor i.e., Central Excise Officers

Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Hanamkonda, represented by

its Secretary and since then he is enjoying the said property. It is

further stated that the above sale deed is in compliance of the decree

dated 16.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.133 of 1986 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal and while disposing of the

said suit, the learned Senior Civil Judge, granted specific performance

duly revising L.P.No.6/1975 with respect to some excess land. It is

further alleged that A-1 to A-11 executed a sale deed dated 13.10.2014

in favour of A-12 by wrongly describing the schedule property as

12,100 square yards instead of 10,000 square yards and the said sale

deed is sham, nominal, bogus, fictitious and inoperative and that

their ancestor one Nalla Ramaswamy executed a registered sale deed

on 07.12.1976 and the same is within the knowledge of the accused. It

is also alleged that on 03.05.2015 the accused tried to occupy the land

illegally, but the 2nd respondent resisted them with the assistance of

his well wishers, for which the accused abused and threatened him

with dire consequences. Since the police failed to register the

complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent, he filed the above private

complaint. The learned Magistrate referred the said private

complaint to the police for investigation and report. Basing on such

reference, a case in Crime No.148 of 2015 came to be registered by the

Police, Subedari, for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 406,

420, 423 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Hence, the present

Criminal Petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in the

above crime.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent and the learned Counsel for

the 2nd respondent.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

property in dispute originally belongs to the ancestors of the

petitioners as per Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, which is Inam

land and pattadar is one Ramaswamy and the pahanies for the years

2009-2010 and 2011 shows that it is a vacant land alleged to be

alienated by their ancestors on 07.12.1976 to the society and thereafter

the Inamdar name is continued as pattadar and possessor. Therefore,

it is clearly shows that the alienation by Ramaswamy is hit by Section

3 (2) (b) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 as

all rights, title and interest vesting in Inamdar shall cease and be

vested absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances from

01.07.1973 and no inamdar can convey any valid and legal title and

interest in the property to anybody thereafter when he is divested of

all rights, title and interest in the property. There is no evidence to

show that he was registered as pattadar under Section 4 of the said

Act. In this view of the matter, the vendor of the 2nd respondent has

not acquired any title, right or interest over the property in dispute.

It is further submitted that in the litigation between the Society and

the 2nd respondent, the petitioners are not parties to the said suit and

hence the same is not binding on them. While so, the registered sale

deed dated 01.11.2011 executed by the society in favour of the 2nd

respondent also does not convey any right, title or interest as the

original owner Ramaswamy himself could not pass any valid title,

right or interest in the property besides the fact that possession as per

the pahanies for the years 1976-77 to 2013-2014 shows the name of the

original ancestor of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners being

owners, possessors and enjoyers of the said property executed sale

deed 13.10.2014 in favour of A-12. It is also submitted that the

complaint prima facie established that the dispute is purely civil in

nature and as such the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is further

submitted that even if the entire allegations are taken in its entirety,

still they do not constitute any offence much less the offences alleged

against the petitioners and as such, initiation of proceedings against

the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of law and prayed

to quash the proceedings in the above crime. He relied upon the

judgments of the Apex Court in Trilok Singh and others v. Satya Deo

Tripathi1 and in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others2.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the Criminal

Petition contending that there is sufficient material available against

the petitioners to constitute the offences alleged against them, hence

requested to reject the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would

submit that it is not a dispute of civil in nature and the petitioners

and other accused, having knowledge that the vendor of the 2nd

respondent acquired the said property through a decree passed by

the competent civil Court, created sham and bogus sale deed in order

to grab the property in dispute. It is further submitted that the 2nd

respondent has acquired the property in question along with other

AIR 1979 SC 850

(2015) 6 SCC 287

properties through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011 from his

vendor M/s Central Excise Officers Co-operative Housing Society

Limited, Hanumakonda represented by its Secretary and ever since

the date of said sale deed, he is enjoying the said property. It is

further submitted that the petitioners herein have not raised any

valid ground to quash the crime proceedings. The petitioners have

not filed any document to show the title except revenue records

(pahanies) before this Court. It is also submitted that in exercising

the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court would not

embark upon an inquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are

likely to be established by evidence or not and the proceedings

against the accused in the initial stage cannot be quashed if on the

facts of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, offence

is constituted. He further submitted that as to what would be the

evidence against the accused is not a matter to be considered at this

stage and would have to be proved at the trial. It is also submitted

that the allegations in the complaint make out a criminal offence

against the accused persons.

In Devendra v. State of U.P.3, 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

(2009) 7 SCC 495

although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."

In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others4 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 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

(2011) 7 SCC 59

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

another5 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 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, the contention of the petitioners is that since

the property in dispute is Inam land and as such, the alienation made

(2009) 8 SCC 751

by Ramaswamy as well as the subsequent alienation made by the

Society in favour of the 2nd respondent is not valid.

A perusal of the material on record would show that the 2nd

respondent had purchased the subject property from Central Excise

Officers Cooperative Housing Society, represented by its Secretary,

through a registered sale deed dated 01.11.2011. As per Khasra

Pahani for the year 1954-55, the subject property is Inam land and

pattadar is one Ramaswamy, who is the ancestor of the petitioners,

and as per the pahanies for the years 2009-2010 and 2011, the

property in dispute is a vacant land, which was alleged to be

alienated on 07.12.1976 to the Society and even thereafter the name of

Ramaswamy (Inamdar) is continued as pattadar and possessor. As

there is a dispute with regard to the title, possession and enjoyment

of the subject property, the contentions raised by the petitioners have

some substance and apparently it seems that the matter is of purely

civil nature, which is to be determined by a competent civil Court.

On over all consideration of entire material placed on record

and the contentions urged before this Court by the learned Counsel

for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and

the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra,

it is suffice to conclude that the contentions raised by the learned

Counsel for the 2nd respondent are without any substance and the

material produced before this Court, directly indicates the mala fides

in prosecution of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, so

also, by abuse of process of the Court, as an arm-twisting method to

bring the petitioners to the terms of the 2nd respondent and to cloak a

civil dispute with criminal nature, he has resorted to criminal

litigation.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to

exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is

allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2015 of Subedari

Police Station, Warangal Urban District, against the petitioners/A-1,

A-2 and A-9 for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 406, 420,

423 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., are hereby quashed.

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

this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 18.06.2021 Gsn/gkv