Telangana High Court
Kavati Sathya Laxmi vs The State Of Telangana on 15 February, 2022
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9499 OF 2021
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 - State. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on
behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.1414
of 2021 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Sircilla. The offence alleged against them is under Section - 420 of IPC.
3. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the allegations made
against the petitioners herein are that petitioner No.1 is the owner of the
land admeasuring Acs.2-29 guntas in Survey No.1158, situated at the
outskirts of Venkatapur Village. She has entered into the agreement with
respondent No.2 for sale of the said land for a sale consideration of
Rs.2,85,000/- in the year 2011. Respondent No.2 had paid an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance sale consideration and agreed to pay
balance sale consideration on or before 26.09.2011. However,
respondent No.2 had paid the balance sale consideration amount of
Rs.1,85,000/- in two installments to petitioner No.1 on 09.08.2011 and
03.11.2011. She has executed sale deed in favour of LW.2, wife of
respondent No.2, for an extent of Acs.1-14½ guntas and failed to execute
the sale deed for the remaining extent of Acs.1-14½ guntas having
received the entire sale consideration amount. On the other hand,
petitioner No.1 had registered the said land in favour of his son,
petitioner No.2, and thereby she has committed the offence of cheating.
4. Perusal of the record would reveal that the Investigating Officer
has recorded the statements of respondent No.2 as LW.1, his wife as
LW.2, eye-witnesses as LWs.3 to 5. LW.6 is a circumstantial witness.
On consideration of entire material, the Investigating Officer has laid the
charge sheet. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the
petitioners herein.
5. Mr. T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners, would
submit that respondent No.2 has to file a suit for specific performance of
agreement of sale and a suit for declaration to declare the sale deed said
to have executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of her son, petitioner No.2
herein, as null and void. Instead of doing so, he has lodged the complaint
with police. There is a delay of 11 years in lodging the said complaint.
The Investigating Officer without considering the said aspects registered
the crime and laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein.
According to him, the contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of
the offence under Section - 420 of IPC.
6. As stated above, the Investigating Officer, on consideration of
statements of LWs.1 to 6, laid the charge sheet. Prima facie, there is
specific allegation against the petitioners that petitioner No.1 having
received the entire sale consideration had executed sale deed in favour of
petitioner No.2 with regard to the remaining extent of Acs.1-14½ guntas
of land with a mala fide intention to cheat respondent No.2 herein. There
are several triable issues. The petitioners have to face trial and prove
their innocence. The said defences cannot be looked into at this stage in
an application filed under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. The Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of
Maharashtra1 has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings
was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any
offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out
in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been
taken by Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same. It
was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done
before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or
acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and consideration
of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the
ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification
for the High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or
facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal,
were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold. At that
stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint
spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to
consider whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were
alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said
allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of
issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by
. AIR 2019 SC 847
entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused.
Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the ground that,
allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of
offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint,
criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.
8. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier
judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in
exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to
quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with
extreme caution.
9. In view of the above discussion and the principle laid down by
the Apex Court, the petitioners failed to make out any ground to quash
the proceedings in the above C.C. at this stage and, therefore, the present
petition is devoid of merits.
10. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
15th February, 2022
Mgr
. AIR 2021 SC 931
