Ghulam Rabbani, Hyd 2 Otrs., vs Smt.T.Lakshmi Sujatha, Rr.Dt ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3493 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.906 of 2015
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners - A1, A3 and A4 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them in CC

No.29 of 2015 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.

2. The 1st respondent - complainant lodged a private complaint

against the petitioners and A2 stating that she purchased the property

bearing No.2-3-759/1 admeasuring 435 sq.yds., equivalent to 363.6

sq.mts., situated at Zindatilismath Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad from

A1 on 25.02.2008 vide registered document No.1570 of 2008 and

paid a total sale consideration of Rs.21,00,000/- to A1. A1, who was

the real brother of A2, already executed a sale deed vide document

No.436/1982 dated 18.01.1982 in favour of A2. A4 was a friend of

A1 and A2, and they made a criminal conspiracy to cheat the de facto

complainant and created forged documents and received huge

amounts from her. It was further stated that A2 in collusion with A1

filed a false case and obtained a decree in O.S No.475 of 1995 from

the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and produced

A4 before the Court by impersonating him as A2 and got registered

the said property in the name of A1 in the year 1982 and without

disclosing the said facts to the de facto complainant at the time of

executing the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 25.04.2008 obtained

money from her and that she gave a complaint to the Station House Dr.GRR,J

Officer, Amberpet as well as the Commissioner of Police,

Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. The police failed to book a case against the

accused. The said complaint was referred to the police and the same

was registered as Crime No.122 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468

read with 34 IPC. The police, after investigation filed charge sheet

against A1 to A4 under Sections 420 IPC by deleting the other

sections.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

Public Prosecutor. There is no representation by the learned counsel

for the 1st respondent. As the matter is pertaining to the year 2015, it

is decided to proceed with the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there were

no allegations in the complaint that the petitioners made any false

representation to the de facto complainant. As a matter of fact, A2

registered a document in favour of the de facto complainant and it was

A2, who cheated the de facto complainant. The complaint was filed

suppressing the judgment and decree obtained by the petitioners 1 and

2 i.e. A1 and A3 from the Court of VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil

Courts, Hyderabad in O.S No.1591 of 2008 which was a decree on

merits. The de facto complainant was a party to the said proceedings.

After a period of 7 years, the complaint was filed suppressing the

material facts, which would amount to abuse of process of law. The

de facto complainant had not filed any suit for specific performance of

agreement of sale or for recovery of possession but choose to file the Dr.GRR,J

criminal case only to pressurize the petitioners to settle her scores and

prayed to quash the proceedings in CC No.29 of 2015.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

6 Perused the record. The police, after investigation, filed

charge sheet against A1 to A4 alleging that A1 to A3 knowing pretty

well that A2 was not the owner of the said land and he has already

sold the said land to A1, still sold the same land and executed

registered sale deed in favour of the complainant and took an amount

of Rs.21,00,000/-, which attracted the offence of cheating under

Section 420 IPC and caused wrongful loss to the de facto complainant

and wrongful gain for themselves. As the charge sheet would prima

facie disclose the commission of cognizable offence by the

petitioners, and the correctness and otherwise of the said allegations

will have to be decided only after a full-fledged trial, but not at this

stage, the charge sheet cannot be quashed.

7. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the

presence of the 2nd petitioner - A3 is dispensed with before the trial

Court and she shall appear before the trial Curt only as and when her

presence is required. All the other petitioners shall appear before the

trial Court in CC. No.29 of 2015.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 16, 2021 KTL