Shela Murali vs The State Of Ap., Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3526 Tel

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.13220 of 2013

ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioner/A2 under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.519 of 2013 on the file

of SHO, PS Hayath Nagar, registered against him for the offences

under Sections 420, 506 and 120-B IPC.

2. The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the VII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayath Nagar on 12-07-2013 submitting that

the petitioner represented to her that he was the owner of plot No.4,

admeasuring 228 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.379 and 380 situated at

Anmagal, Hayath Nagar (V & M), R.R.District, having purchased the

same by virtue of an agreement of sale cum GPA with possession

from A1 who was the original owner. The complainant along with A2

approached A1 to ascertain the title. A1 informed that he was pattedar

of land to an extent of Ac.3.10 guntas in Sy. No.379 and that he made

the said land into plots and sold to various purchasers and admitted

execution of agreement of sale cum GPA dated 22-07-2002 in favour

of A2. The complainant agreed to purchase the said plot. Accordingly,

A2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of complainant by

receiving total sale consideration vide document No.6087/2002 dated

27-08-2002 and delivered vacant physical possession. The name of

the complainant was reflected in the concerned Encumbrance

Certificate. While so, the complainant to meet her domestic needs

intended to sell away the plot and informed a real estate mediator. On Dr.GRR,J

04-07-2013, the mediator went to the said plot and found construction

of a compound wall and third parties in it. On enquiry with them, he

came to know that they purchased the said plot in the year 1999

through registered document from its lawful owner. The mediator

informed the complainant about the same. Immediately, the

complainant came to Hyderabad and on enquiry came to know that

A1 who was the original pattedar of the land sold the subject plot to

one Mr. Nagarjun Reddy on 20-09-1999 and by suppressing the same

in collusion with A2 brought into existence the agreement of sale cum

GPA, basing on which the sale deed was executed in favour of the

complainant. When the husband of the complainant enquired with A1

and A2, they gave evasive replies and threatened him with dire

consequences. The said private complaint was referred to police under

Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as Crime No.519

of 2013.

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

Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/

complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner was falsely implicated in the above Crime, the complainant

had not issued any notice nor filed any suit. The matter was civil in

nature. The petitioner executed a registered sale deed and delivered

vacant possession in the year 2002 itself. The petitioner was not aware

of any sale transaction executed by A1 to any others prior to the

agreement of sale cum GPA executed in his favour by A1. The Dr.GRR,J

respondent No.2 registered the case against the petitioner with an

intention to harass him and prayed to quash the FIR. He relied upon

the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Murari Lal Gupta v.

Gopi Singh1, Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Dhanannava and

another2 and of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

Piara Singh v. State of Haryana and another3.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that A1

& A2 colluded with each other and cheated the complainant. They had

not returned the money received by them. The contents of the

complainant would attract the criminal ingredients of the offences

which were registered against the petitioner and other accused and

prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.

7. Perused the record. The complaint filed by the respondent

No.2 would disclose that A1 sold the subject plot to one Mr. Nagarjun

Reddy on 20-09-1999 and subsequently, executed an agreement of

sale cum GPA with possession in favour of A2 and subsequently, A2

executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 by

receiving the total sale consideration. The complaint, prima facie,

would disclose cognizable offences. Whether the petitioner/A2 had

knowledge of A1 executing the sale deed in favour of Mr.Nagarjun

Reddy is a fact which would be known only after completing the

investigation and during the trial. The complaint cannot be dismissed

(2006) 2 SCC (Crl) 430

AIR 2005 SC 1047(1)

2011 (2) AICLR Page 225 Dr.GRR,J

at the threshold. The facts of the cases, relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, are different from the facts of the case on

hand. As the facts of the present case would disclose that it was not a

dispute of entirely civil in nature, but contained the ingredients of

criminal offences, the same cannot be quashed. The complicity of the

petitioner/A1 can be decided only after a full-fledged trial. Hence, it is

considered fit to dismiss the petition.

8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous

petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 17, 2021 KTL