Panyam Madhuri, Hyderabad Anr vs Kandadi Venkat Reddy, Ranga Reddy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4490 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL PETITOIN No.13871 OF 2013
ORDER:

1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/A11 and A12 for

quashing all the proceedings against them in CC No.1004 of

2013 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri,

Which charge sheet is filed by the Keesara police for the

offence under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

2nd petitioner/A12 died, as such, case against A12 stands

abated.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st

respondent/complainant and 66 other farmers are owners of

Acs.177.26 guntas situated at Keesara Dayara village in

Sy.Nos.10,11,17,16,15,39,123,257,264,263,262, 164, 156,

157, 158, 159, 160 and cultivating the same since 60 years

and above with peaceful possession. A1 to A7 colluded with

these the petitioners who are directors of M/s.Vikrama Infra

and got registered part of the land i.e., the agriculture land in

Sy.No.123 Part, admeasuring acs.9.00 guntas and land in

Sy.No.159 part, admeasuring Acs.13.16 guntas, in Sy.No160

Part, admeasuring 9.16 guntas in Sy.No.164, admeasuring

Acs.11.23 guntas, in Sy.No.257, admeasuring Acs.20.18

guntas, total land admeasuring acs.54.33 guntas, situated at

Keesara Dayara village, Keesara Revenue Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District under Keesara Dayara Gram Panchayat.

5. The defacto complainant and other 66 farmers are

pattadars of the said lands purchased by petitioners and all of

them were given ownership certificate under Section 38 E of

A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and

since then they have been in peaceful possession. The

accused 1 to 7, who are legal heirs of late Tarabai, challenged

the certificate issued to the defacto complainant and others

under Section 38-E of the Act, before the Joint Collector.

However, their appeal was dismissed and the ownership of the

defacto complainant was confirmed.

6. The police having registered complaint, after investigation

filed charge sheet against A1 to A16 for the reason of entering

into criminal conspiracy and committing the act of cheating.

A1 to A7 registered the property in favour of these petitioners

and others, though it is to their knowledge that the accused

A1 to A7 did not have any right over the said property.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even

admitting the sale transaction, no offence of cheating or

criminal conspiracy is made out. In support of his contention,

he relied on the judgment reported in the cases of i) Hira Lal

Hari Lal Bhagwavi v. CBI, New Delhi1, ii) Indian Oil Corporation

v. NEPC India Limited2, iii) Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State

(NCT of Delhi), Department of Home3, iv) Parveen @ Sonu v.

State of Haryana4 and argued that none of the ingredients under

Section 420 are made out and unless there is misrepresentation

pursuant to which a person is induced and delivers property, the

offence of Section 420 IPC will be attracted. Further, there has to

be an agreement between the parties to do an unlawful act and

only in the said circumstances, an offence under Section 120-B of

(2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 257

(2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736

(2019) 11 Supreme Court Cases 706

2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184

IPC is attracted. No such evidence is available to infer criminal

conspiracy.

8. The case against these petitioners is that they have

purchased the property, being the Directors of the company on

behalf of M/s.Vikrama Infra Ventures Private Limited.

9. The ownership is in the name of the defacto complainant and

other farmers by virtue of Section 38-E ownership certificate. In the

said circumstances, even assuming that A1 to A7 have registered

the land in the name of these petitioners, such registration would

not confer any right to the petitioners over the property in any

manner. When the property does not belong to A1 to A7, the said

transaction between A1 to A7 and the petitioners selling the land of

defacto complainant and others would not in any manner create

any right either to the accused A1 to A7 or to these petitioners.

10. Except the police investigation stating that the transaction of

sale was in between A1 to A7 and these petitioners, there is

absolutely no allegation that these petitioners have, at any point of

time, either approached the defacto complainant or any of the other

farmers in any manner or induced them to part with any property.

As already stated, the sale transaction between A1 to A7 will not in

any manner create any right to these petitioners over the said

property. In the said circumstances, no offence of cheating is made

against these petitioners. The petitioners have purchased the

property in the name of the company, but the company is not

named as accused. For the aforesaid reasons, the case against the

petitioner/A11 is hereby set aside.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed quashing

the proceedings against petitioner/A11 in CC No.1004 of 2013

on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13871 OF 2013

Date: 08.09.2022.

kvs