Telangana High Court
Eleswarapu Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 27 December, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2415 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.3538 of 2021 on the file of XVI
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendernagar.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that he purchased the plot in
question which is plot no.77, Sy.No.159, Brundavan Colony
situated at Narsingi village and registered on 22.07.2019 vide
document No.8275 of 2019 from one Smt. Chitturi Subbalakshmi,
W/o late Sri Chitturi Balarama Murthy and her family members.
Since the date of purchase, he is in possession and enjoyment of
the property.
According to the complainant, the plot was subjected to
transfer in the name of first petitioner on the basis of false
documents which were created. Though the said late Chitturi
Balarama Murthy died on 06.03.1974, false document was created
which is a GPA in the name of one B.Anjan Kumar on 02.09.2008
at Tadepallilgudem. Said B.Anjan Kumar sold the property to one
Samala Kishan, who in turn sold it to V.Jyothi and the said
V.Jyothi sold it to the1st petitioner/A1 herein.
3. Further, according to the complainant, the civil Court
observed that the GPA dated 02.09.2008 in the name of late
Chitturi Balarama Murthy was fabricated document. On
22.06.2020 some persons were interfering with the possession of
their property, for which a complaint was lodged. Thereafter, again
for the reason of the petitioners 2 and 3 entering into the said
premises and trying to construct a compound wall, present
complaint came to be filed. The police, PS Narsingi, after conclusion
of investigation, filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections
447, 427, 420, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 2nd
petitioner/A2 died, as such, the case against 2nd petitioner stands
abated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on a bare
reading of the complaint, the transactions are purely civil in nature
and the question of these petitioners being involved in criminal
offence does not arise. The said criminal complaint was filed only to
settle civil disputes, which cannot be permitted. He relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randheer
Singh v. The State of U.P in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2021, dated
02.09.2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no
criminal offence was made out for the reason of the documents
filed not disclosing any fabrication of documents by the petitioners
therein.
6. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Ramesh Chandra Gupta v. State of U.P in Criminal
Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.39 of 2022 and referred to para
nos.15 to 19, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the
powers of the High Court to quash the proceedings under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of M/s.Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s.NEPC
India Ltd., (AIR 2006 SC 2780) and argued that it was observed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases.
7. Admittedly, the land was purchased by A1 on 16.07.2012 from
vendor V.Jyothi. Even according to the investigation, on the basis of
an alleged fabricated document dated 02.09.2008 in favour of
B.Anjan Kumar, property was sold to one Samala Kishan, who in
turn sold it to V.Jyothi. The 1st petitioner is the 4th purchaser. The
said persons B.Anjan Kumar, Samala Kishan and V.Jyothi are not
arrayed as accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that the 1st
petitioner having knowledge about the falsity of the ownership or
fabrication of documents, purchased the subject property in the
year 2012. The complainant had purchased the property in the year
2019 and the civil Court by order dated 30.07.2013 found that the
document dated 02.09.2008 in favour of B.Anjan Kumar was
fabricated. In the said circumstances, when the 1st petitioner/A1
had purchased the property in the year 2012 itself, the allegation
that this petitioner was complicit in fabricating the documents,
cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is the 4th
purchaser of the said property, and all previous documents are
registered documents.
8. To attract an offence of cheating, it has to be shown that the
persons had deceitfully obtained the property. There are no such
allegations in the present complaint, even according to the 2nd
respondent, the petitioners 1 and 2 are strangers, who are identified
only on the date when the alleged trespassing had taken place.
Even according to the police, no documents are fabricated by the
petitioners. The 1st petitioner had purchased the land by way of
registered sale deed, for which reason, the question of fabrication of
documents does not arise.
9. Even according to the charge sheet, the petitioners do not
have knowledge about any parallel registration of the very same
property. 3rd petitioner along with the deceased 2nd petitioner
entered into the plot, which was purchased by A1 in the year 2012,
such entering the plot would not amount to an offence of criminal
trespass as they entered under a bonafide belief that the plot which
was purchased in the year 2012 belongs to A1.
10. For all the above mentioned reasons, no case is made out
against the 1st and 3rd petitioners, who are A1 and A3.
11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 and
A3 in C.C.No.3538 of 2021 on the file of XVI Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendernagar, are hereby
quashed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 27.12.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.2415 OF 2022
Date: 27.12.2022.
kvs
