M/S. Speed Projects And ... vs State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2618 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                CRIMINAL PETITION No.6531 OF 2020

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section -

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to

quash the proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020 of Narsingi Police

Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said

crime registered on the complaint referred under Section - 156 (3) of

the Cr.P.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections -

420, 406 and 120B of the IPC.

3. Heard Mr. E. Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel

representing Mr. Sanjay Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners,

and Mr. Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel representing Mr.

Ghanta Sridhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 -

State.

4. CASE OF PROSECUTION:

i) Respondent No.2 is the father and GPA Holder of Chirla

Niyanthi Reddy.

ii) She is the absolute owner of land, admeasuring Ac.0-20

guntas in Survey Nos.163/E, 174/A, 174/AA, 174/EE,

174/D, 176/A, 176/AA, 176/E, 176/EE and 176/D, KL,J

situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District.

iii) Accused No.1 represented by its Managing Director,

accused No.2 and accused No.3 - Mr. Vajrender Rao

approached respondent No.2 and expressed their interest

to take the aforesaid land apart from the lands of other

abutting owners for development of the said land into a

residential / commercial villas, named as 'Legend

Chimes'.

iv) Pursuant to the said request, the daughter of respondent

No.2 entered into a Development Agreement - cum -

General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) on 06.01.2007

with accused No.1 - M/s. Speedy Projects and

Infrastructure Private Limited, represented by accused

Nos.2 and 3, empowering them to manage, look after and

administer the affairs of the said property and also to

apply for construction permission, and to enter into

agreement of sale, to receive advances or entire sale

consideration and to execute sale deeds etc.

v) The time stipulated for completion of the project was six

(06) years. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 representing

accused No.1 breached the terms and conditions of the

said DAGPA by not completing the project within the

stipulated period.

KL,J

vi) Moreover, the Club House and the amenities which come

under the lifestyle development areas admeasuring 5084

square yards together with a building comprising of

ground plus four upper floors admeasuring 75,000 square

feet was sold twice, and thereby committed breach of

trust.

vii) Accused No.1 sold out the Club House to accused No.11

- M/s. Legend Estates Private Limited, represented by its

Managing Director, Mr. B. Nageswara Rao, accused

No.12 under a sale deed dated 20.04.2011 without any

supporting sale consideration.

viii) Accused No.11, in turn, sold the Club House to accused

No.13, represented by its Managing Director and

Director, Mr. Pratap Jadeja and Mrs. B.Sunitha, wife of

B. Nageswara Rao, accused Nos.14 and 15, respectively.

ix) Accused No.15 is none other than the wife of accused

No.12 and she is one of the Directors in accused No.13 -

M/s. Blue Planet Courtyard Private Limited. This shows

the criminal intent of the accused in commission of the

offences alleged against them.

x) The accused brought into existence a Memorandum of

Understanding dated 10.07.2007 and a Supplementary

Deed dated 08.03.2021 to claim ownership over the said

Club House as if he is representing the land owners based

on the DAGPA.

KL,J

xi) DAGPA never empowered accused No.1 to sell the Club

House.

xii) In a meeting held with the land owners on 09.11.2014,

the accused informed them that none of their Villas have

been mortgaged or encumbered with any Governmental

or Quasi-Governmental Authorities. But, later the

complainant came to know that Villa No.48 allotted to

her was mortgaged to HMDA in 2009 itself and

continues to be mortgaged and its release from mortgage

is subject to the completion of project, which has been

abandoned by the accused.

xiii) In the said meeting dated 09.11.2014, it was also

informed by accused Nos.1, 11 and 12 that the 'Club

House' is the jewel of the project and it has not been

either mortgaged or encumbered in any way, whereas, in

reality, accused had already sold the said club house on

20.04.2011.

xiv) The accused behind the back of the complainant sold

away common properties of the complainant and other

land owners without any authorization. Thus, the

accused played fraud on all the land owners.

xv) Land owners filed A.O.P. No.656 of 2016 against

accused Nos.1, 2, 11 and 12 before the IV Additional

District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein accused

Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that they did KL,J

not sell the club house to accused No.11, and thereby

misled the Court.

xvi) Accused No.2 in collusion and criminal conspiracy with

each other, accused No.11 transferred an amount of

Rs.8.00 Crores to accused No.1 under MOU dated

10.07.2007 and the same was never informed to the

complainant and other land owners. In fact, the said

amount ought to have been distributed amongst the land

owners. Now, accused No.11 is asking the complainant

and other land owners to return the said amount which

shows the intention of accused in cheating the

complainant and the land owners.

xvii) As per Clause - 34 of the DGPA, the complainant and

other land owners would get one Villa of 3500 sft. in a

plot size of 500 square yards each, and so also the

developer. However, they were allotted 4000 sft. In a

plot of 500 square yards. But, accused Nos.1 and 11

clandestinely have allotted themselves larger size Villas

with an area of 14000 sft.

xviii) Based on the application of accused No.1, HMDA had

released a revised permission on 28.07.2017, and as per

the said revised permission, a park was converted into 10

Villas which were clandestinely allotted among the

accused, even though the park land remains an undivided KL,J

share of the complainant and the land owners as per the

DAGPA.

xix) Accused No.1 mortgaged Villa Nos.40 to 53 and 26 to 39

and later Villa Nos.172 and 173 and accordingly

executed mortgage deeds in favour of HMDA and,

thereafter the HMDA had granted permission on

06.01.2010. But, accused Nos.1, 2, 11 and 12 in

furtherance of their criminal intention colluded with each

other and sold mortgage Villa Nos.49, 52 and 172 to third

parties and keeping the said fact in dark, the accused got

the revised permission from HMDA on 03.06.2013.

xx) Thus, the accused played fraud on the complainant and

the land owners and cheated them by committing

criminal breach of trust etc.

5. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

i) Petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of

land admeasuring Acs.4-20 guntas in Sy. Nos.161, 181,

183, 184 and 185 of Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar

Mandal.

ii) The individuals owning their respective land parcels in

Sy. Nos.158, 161, 162, 167/4 and 171 to 187, situated in

Kokapet, intended to pool their lands and undertake

common development into a residential - commercial

lifestyle space. Petitioner No.1 accepted the said KL,J

proposal and accordingly entered into 38 separate

registered DAGPAs, and as per which, Acs.38.06 guntas

of land was given to petitioner No.1 for development.

iii) Accused No.1 approached petitioner No.1 with a

proposal to undertake development of the property by

constructing high end luxury Villas. After taking consent

of all the land owners, petitioner No.1 entered into an

MOU dated 10.07.2007 for development of the property

and accordingly, petitioner No.1 handed over the

possession of the aforesaid land to accused No.11 for

construction of Villas.

iv) Pursuant to the said MOU, a registered Supplementary

Agreement was executed on 08.03.2011 between

petitioner No.1 and accused No.11. As per the said

Supplementary agreement, the land owners were

allocated 78 Villas, petitioner No.1 was allocated 25

Villas, while accused No.11 was allocated 150 Villas.

v) As per Clause - 18 of MOU and Clause - 4 (iv) and (v) of

the Supplementary Agreement, the Club House / Resort

land and its appurtenant area admeasuring 5086 square

yards was owned by accused No.11, and he had a right to

alienate it. However, all the land owners shall have right

to enter the Club house and utilize its services/ facilities,

but neither land owners, nor petitioner No.1 shall have

any title over the said Club House.

KL,J

vi) Subsequently, accused No.11 added additional land of

about Acs.7-16.84 guntas and obtained a revised sanction

plan from HMDA on 03.06.2013. Due to the said revised

sanction plan, certain changes were made with regard to

the internal road, size of plots etc., and, therefore,

accused No.11 obtained third revised sanction plan from

HMDA.

vii) In terms of the MOU, several villa plots including villa

plot No.48 of the complainant were mortgaged in favour

of the HMDA, which selects the Villas for mortgage

purpose and, therefore, petitioner No.1 had no role in

selection of villas for mortgage.

viii) As per Clause - 3 of MOU, accused No.11 deposited

Rs.8.00 Crores with petitioner No.1 by way of refundable

interest free deposit. Though, it was to be repaid after

completion of the Project work, but the land owners

insisted to obtain possession of their villas in an

incomplete stage for their personal reasons. Thus,

accused No.11 demanded the repayment of Security

Deposit for handing over possession of villas. With no

alternative, petitioner No.1 was compelled to pay back

the said amount to accused No.11 by way of transferring

its personal property under eight registered sale deeds.

KL,J

ix) There are civil and criminal proceedings initiated by the

land owners and petitioner No.1.

x) Referring to the above, the learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the complaint does not

make out commission of any of the offences alleged

against the petitioners. The dispute between the

petitioners and the complainant is civil in nature and does

not satisfy any of the basic ingredients of the offences

alleged in the complaint.

xi) As per Clause - 18 of the MOU and Clause - 4 (iv) and

(v) of the Supplementary Agreement, the Club House and

its appurtenant area is exclusively owned by accused

No.11. Therefore, the allegations that petitioner No.1

sold the Club House to accused No.11 keeping the land

owners and the complainant in the dark, and thereby

played fraud on them and cheated them etc. are all

incorrect. In view of the said MOU and the

Supplementary Agreement, the question of cheating by

the petitioners also does not arise.

xii) He would further submit that the complaint does not

attract the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under

Section - 406 of IPC.

xiii) Learned counsel would also submit that whatever

transactions took place were in writing and there was no KL,J

hide and seek game being played. In fact, the

complainant and the other land owners entered into

DAGPA with petitioner No.1, represented by petitioner

No.2 and accused No.3 for development of their

respective land into a common pool apart from the land

of petitioner No.1. Pursuant to the said DAGPA,

petitioner No.1 entered into a MOU on 10.07.2007 for

undertaking construction, and thereafter, a supplementary

deed on 08.03.2011, wherein allocation of ratios of

respective parties have also been mentioned and, thus,

everything was on paper. In view of the same, the

question of petitioners playing fraud, cheating them and

committing the breach of trust etc., does not arise.

Moreover, any violation of term that occurs would attract

a civil remedy and not a criminal remedy as alleged in the

complaint.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners

sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in the aforesaid

crime.

6. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT No.2:

i) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that

there are specific allegations against each of the accused

made by the complainant. After going through the entire

complaint filed under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C., the KL,J

learned Magistrate after satisfying himself, referred the

same to the police under Section - 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

Pursuant to the same, the police registered the aforesaid

crime against the petitioners and others and took up

investigation.

ii) He would further submit that the petitioners and other

accused in furtherance of their common intention to cheat

the complainant and other land owners, played fraud on

them, cheated them and committed breach of terms and

conditions of DAGPA and, thus, all of them are liable to

be prosecuted in a Court of law for the aforesaid

offences.

iii) He would further submit that right from the beginning,

petitioner No.1 started cheating the complainant and

other land owners as is evident by the DAGPA.

With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to dismiss the

criminal petition.

7. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

i) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

the State would submit that there are specific allegations mentioned in

the complaint by the complainant. All the said allegations are to be

investigated into by the Investigating Officer. The investigation is

under progress. The Investigating Officer has to examine several KL,J

witnesses by recording their statements under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C.

and, therefore, at this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed.

With the said submissions, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor sought

to dismiss the petition.

8. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) The above stated facts and submissions would reveal that the

daughter of respondent No.2 and others being the land owners of

respective extents have executed a DAGPA bearing document No.368

of 2007, dated 06.01.2007, with accused No.1 represented by accused

Nos.2 and 3 being the Managing Director and Director respectively,

on the terms and conditions specifically agreed therein. It is also

relevant to note that accused No.1 represented by accused No.2 in the

capacity of the representative of the land owners including the

daughter of respondent No.2, entered into an MOU with accused

No.11 on 10.07.2007 for the purpose of construction of independent

high-end luxury villas in a gated community on the terms and

conditions specifically agreed there-under. Thereafter, accused No.1

entered into Agreement and Deed of Mortgage with HMDA vide

document bearing No.3075 of 2009, dated 02.12.2009. It is also

relevant to note that daughter of respondent No.2 and other land

owners have also entered into a supplementary agreement bearing

document No.577 of 2011, dated 08.03.2011 with accused No.1

represented by accused No.2 and accused No.11 represented by KL,J

accused No.12 on the terms and conditions specifically mentioned

therein. Accused No.1 and accused No.11 had obtained permission

for the purpose of construction of villas from HMDA, vide permit

dated 06.10.2010 and thereafter a revised plan was also obtained on

03.06.2013. A perusal of the record would also reveal that accused

Nos.1 and 11 have also obtained a revised plan from HMDA dated

28.07.2017.

ii) Respondent No.2 had also lodged a complaint dated

30.01.2016 with HMDA against accused Nos.1 and 11 alleging that

there is inordinate delay in completing villas and illegal activities and

fraud are committed in the Layout etc. The daughter of respondent

No.2 had also filed a writ petition No.26701 of 2016 against HMDA

and accused Nos.1 to 5, 11 and 12, to declare the inaction of

respondent No.2 for violation of the terms of permit LP

No.02/LO/HMDA/2009 by respondent Nos.3 to 10 as being violative

of G.O.Ms.No.168, dated 07.04.2012 and for a consequential direction

to respondent No.2 to initiate prosecution of respondent Nos.3 to 10 in

terms of Clause - 27 of the said G.O. There is no interim order passed

in the said writ petition and the said writ petition is pending. It is also

relevant to note that the society of the said villas i.e., Chimes

Residents Association, has also filed W.P. No.25931 of 2017 against

the HMDA and accused No.1, 11 and M/s. R. G. Prime Spaces Private

Limited, to declare the revised layout sanction proceedings dated

03.06.2013 reducing the open area from 17.63 to 11.75 and changing KL,J

the status of the project from a gated community as illegal and for

other directions. The said batch of writ petitions is also pending

before this Court and this Court has granted status quo order on

24.04.2018. Six land owners, like daughter of respondent No.2 have

filed two applications vide AOP Nos.656 and 657 of 2016 under

Section - 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against

Accused Nos.1 to 5, 11 and 12, and the said AOPs were dismissed.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, appeals have filed vide CMA Nos.856

and 859 of 2017 which are pending, and a Division Bench of this

Court vide order dated 31.08.2017 in CMA MP No.1444 of 2017,

restrained accused Nos.11 and 12 from dealing with the subject

property. The said appeal is pending and the said order is subsisting.

iii) It is also relevant to note that several land owners, like the

daughter of respondent No.2 have initiated various proceedings

including the suits, consumer cases, writ petitions and arbitration

applications etc., in respect of the very same land, the details of which

are as under:

  S.No.         Case Number                           Cause title
    1.     OS No.600/2009           Mrs.B. Kalyani v. Kondakalla Balraj & others
    2.     OS No.363/2015           Mrs.Soudamma Doughter v. SPIPL & others

3. Consumer Case No.63/16 Mr. Phanidra Dasika & others v. SPIPL & ors.

4. Consumer Case No.30/16 Smt.Praveena Mallika Kanteti Chimes Residents v. SPIPL & ors.

5. Consumer Case No.46/16 Dr.K. Sanjeeva Reddy & 4 ors v. State & ors.

6. Consumer Case No.31/16 Mr.Bhupendra Chopra & Samidha Chimes Residents v. SPIPL & ors.

7. WP No.26701/2016 Chirla Niyanti Reddy v. State & ors.

8. AOP No.298/2017 E. Uttam Kumar & 5 ors v. SPIPL & Legend &ors

9. WP No.32521/2017 Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. The State & ors.

10. CMA No.859/2017 E. Uttam Kumar & 5 others v. SPIPL & ors.

11. WP No.26182/2017 V. Vajrender Rao v. The State & Ors.

12. WP No.26795/2017 Legend Estates v. The State & Ors.

13. WP No.25956/2017 Jai Prakash Naragoni & 6 ors v. The State & KL,J

ors

14. CMA No.856/2017 E. Uttam Kumar & 5 ors v. SPIPL & Ors.

15. WP No.25931/2017 Chimes Residence Association v. State & ors.

16. Arb.Case of 2018 E. Uttam Kumar & 5 ors v.M/s. SPIPL & ors.

17. OS No.198/2020 V. Vajrender Rao v. Speed Projects & 6 ors.

18. CC No.803/2020 V. Vajrender Rao v. State & ors.

19. WP 19234/2020 Dr.Sanjeeva Reddy v. State & ors.

iv) During pendency of the above said proceedings, more

particularly, W.P. No.26701 of 2016 filed by the daughter of

respondent No.2 and during subsistence of the above said status quo

order, dated 24.04.2018, respondent No.2 herein has filed a complaint

under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. on 29.09.2020. The learned

Magistrate has referred the said complaint to Narsingi Police Station

under Section - 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., who in turn registered a case in

Crime No.883 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences.

v) In the said private complaint also, respondent No.2 has

narrated all the events right from 06.01.2007, on which date, the

daughter of respondent No.2 and other land owners executed DAGPA

with accused Nos.1 to 3 till issuance of revised permission i.e.,

28.07.2017. Thus, respondent No.2 had filed the said complaint with

abnormal delay. There is no explanation for the delay caused in filing

the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C.

vi) As stated above, with regard to the very same property, the

proceedings in the above referred cases are pending, and the issues

which were comprehensively raised by the parties have to be decided

by this Court in the above writ petitions and CMAs and also by the

Civil Court in the above civil cases. As stated above, W.P. No.26701 KL,J

of 2016 filed by daughter of respondent No.2 is also pending for

adjudication. Respondent No.2 did not mention about filing and

pendency of the same in his complaint filed under Section - 200 of

Cr.P.C. Thus, there is a suppression of fact.

vii) It is also relevant to note that Mr. Chirla Baba Prasad

Reddy is the father of Chirla Niyanthi Reddy and he is the General

Power of Attorney Holder of his daughter, whereas, he filed the said

complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. in his individual capacity

instead of filing the said complaint in the capacity of GPA Holder of

his daughter, C. Niyanthi Reddy. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is not

an aggrieved party and he cannot be the complainant. At the most, he

has to represent his daughter in terms of the GPA executed by his

daughter in his favour. Instead of filing the complaint in the capacity

of GPA Holder, he filed the complaint in his individual capacity, that

too with abnormal delay.

viii) The allegation of respondent No.2 in the complaint is that

the land owners including his daughter have undivided share in the

Club House and that accused No.1 sold the said Club House to

accused No.11, and it amounts to cheating and criminal breach of trust

on the part of the accused. A perusal of MOU dated 10.07.2007 and

the supplementary agreement dated 08.03.2011 would reveal that in

Clause - 18 of MOU and Clause - 4 (iv) and (v) of the Supplementary

Agreement, it is specifically mentioned that the Club House / Resort

land and its appurtenant area admeasuring 5086 square yards would be KL,J

exclusively owned by and belong to Legend Estates (accused No.11),

as the Club House is for the explicit purpose of providing recreational

and cultural centre, it was also expressly agreed that the Landowners

shall have the right to enter the Club house, but neither the

Landowners nor the petitioners have any right or claim or interest or

title over the club house. Thus, according to the learned counsel for

the petitioners, in addition to the landowners, the Club house was also

intended to enroll members from outside the community as it was

planned to be a substantial commercial / lifestyle space. Therefore, in

supplementary agreement, more particularly, Clause (v), it is

specifically mentioned that M/s. Legend Estates has a right to alienate

the Club house to anyone, provided the third party purchasers uphold

the said primary objectives of the Club house at all times and the same

principle is binding on all subsequent title holders of the Club house.

Referring to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that there was never any agreement to grant the Landowners an

undivided share in the Club house, but only the right to membership

and access to use it was provided. Therefore, there is no breach of

trust or cheating committed by the petitioners herein. There is not

even a breach of contract with regard to the said Club house. There is

no mention either in the DAGPA, dated 06.01.2007, or in MOU dated

10.07.2007 or in Supplementary Agreement dated 08.03.2011 that the

landowners will be given undivided share in the Club house.

KL,J

ix) With regard to the allegation that accused No.1 to 3, 11 and

12 have played fraud on all the land owners including the daughter of

respondent No.2 with regard to mortgaging the villa of complainant

viz., Villa No.48, in Clause - 16 of the DAGPA, it is clearly

mentioned that HMDA (earlier known as HUDA) would have the sole

discretion to select which parts of the land / houses are to be

mortgaged and the complainant has evidently agreed to the same in

the very beginning itself. The mortgage of the said Villa No.48 in

favour of the HMDA is in accordance with the HMDA Regulations

and the same will be released once the project is completed. Referring

to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the mortgage is part of the terms and conditions of the said DAGPA,

MOU and the Supplementary Agreement and, therefore, there is no

criminal breach of trust and cheating on the part of the petitioners

herein.

x) Referring to Clause - 3 of the MOU, the learned counsel for

the petitioners would submit that accused No.11 had deposited an

amount of Rs.8.00 Crores with accused No.1 by way of refundable

interest free deposit, and once the possession of the villas were taken

by the landowners, accused No.1 was compelled to pay back the

Security Deposit to accused No.11 in kind by way of transfer or its

personal property in favour of the nominees of Legend Estates through

eight (8) registered sale deeds, thereby representing a value equivalent

to the Security Deposit. The said amount of Rs.8.00 Crores was only a KL,J

security deposit and respondent No.2 has no right or claim on the

same and, therefore, the question of petitioners herein committing

criminal breach of trust and cheating does not arise.

xi) With regard to the revised plan, it is relevant to note that

accused Nos.1 and 2 have obtained permission from HMDA dated

06.01.2010, but accused No.11 has obtained revised permission dated

28.07.2017.

xii) Thus, the above stated facts would reveal that there are

disputes between the daughter of respondent No.2 and the landowners

and the accused with regard to the construction of the above said

villas, a gated community in terms of the DAGPA dated 06.01.2007,

MOU, dated 10.07.2007 and the supplementary agreement dated

08.03.2011. According to the land owners, developer has not

completed the villas within the time and in terms agreed therein.

Thus, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the DAGPA and

MOU and the Supplementary Agreement.

xiii) As stated above, the proceedings in the above suits, writ

petitions, consumer cases etc. are pending. There are allegations and

counter allegations. This Court vide order dated 24.04.2018 directed

the parties to maintain status quo. Vide order dated 31.08.2017 in

CMA MP No.1444 of 2017 restrained accused Nos.11 and 12 from

dealing with the subject property.

KL,J

xiv) As discussed above, respondent No.2 has filed the present

complaint in September, 2020, that too during the pendency of the

proceedings including W.P. No.26701 of 2016. Respondent No.2 had

not mentioned about filing of the said writ petition and pendency of

the same in the complaint filed under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C.

xv) Section - 405 of IPC deals with criminal breach of trust and

Section - 415 of IPC deals with cheating. To attract the charge as

defined under Section - 415 of IPC, there should be fraudulent or

dishonest inducement which is an essential ingredient for the said

offence. To attract the offence under Section - 420 of IPC, the

essential ingredients are; (a) delivery of property or person; and (b)

make or, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or

sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. The said

principle was laid down in Prof. R. K.Vijayasarathy v. Sudha

Seetharam1. The very same principle was also laid down in Dr.

Lakshman v. State of Karnataka2.

xvi) Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for respondent No.2 referring to the principle laid down in

M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of

Maharashtra3, would submit that there are several factual aspects and

the matter is at crime stage and, therefore, the same cannot be quashed

and investigation cannot be interdicted. In the said decision, one of

. (2019) 16 SCC 739

. (2019) 9 SCC 677

. AIR 2021 SC 1918 KL,J

the guidelines is that the High Court under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.

can quash the proceedings by giving specific reasons. Thus, there is

scope in the said decision wherein it has given power to High Court

under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR by giving reasons.

Therefore, the said contention of the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent No.2 is unsustainable.

It is also relevant to note that in Mahesh Co-operative Urban Bank

Shareholders Welfare Association v. Ramesh Kumar Bung4 the

Apex Court referring to the principle laid down in M/s. Neeharika

Infrastructure Private Limited (supra) and other judgments

categorically held that in M/s. Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed

space for the High Court to pass an interim order of the nature

impugned therein, "in exceptional cases with caution and

circumspection, giving brief reasons". What is frowned upon in

Neeharika (supra) is the tendency of the Courts to pass blanket,

cryptic, laconic, non speaking orders reading "no coercive steps shall

be adopted". In Paragraph No.60 of the Report in Neeharika (supra),

the Apex Court recognized that there may be allegations of abuse of

process of law, converting a civil dispute into a criminal dispute, with

a view to pressurize the accused.

9. CONCLUSION:

i) The above discussion would further reveal that there are

disputes between the daughter of respondent No.1 and other land

owners and the accused with regard to construction of villas, a gated

. SLP (Crl.) No.3869 of 2021, decided on 20.07.2021 KL,J

community. The said disputes are civil in nature. Admittedly, the

above proceedings are pending. According to this Court, the

complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C.

lack the ingredients of Sections - 405 and 415 of IPC. The daughter

of respondent No.2 instead of pursuing the above said proceedings

which are pending in various Courts including this Court, respondent

No.2 had filed the complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. at a

belated stage that too in his individual capacity, suppressing the

pendency of the writ petition mentioned above. Respondent No.2 and

his daughter cannot seek a finding with regard to interpretation of

terms of the above said agreements from Investigating Officer during

investigation in Crime No.883 of 2020 under Cr.P.C., which is

impermissible under law. As observed above, there is delay in filing

the complaint. Thus, viewed from any angle, continuation of

proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020 pending on the file of Narsingi

Police Station is an abuse of process of law. The present case

squarely falls in one of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5. Therefore, the

proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020 of Narsingi Police Station are

liable to be quashed.

ii) The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the

proceedings in Crime No.883 of 2020 of Narsingi Police Station,

Cyberabad Commissionerate, are hereby quashed against the

petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 alone.

. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 KL,J

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the

Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 17th September, 2021 Mgr