Telangana High Court

G.Ravinder Reddy And 6 Others vs State Of Ap., Rep By Its Sub ... on 12 April, 2023

Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.2153 of 2014

ORDER :

This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings

initiated against the petitioners, in Crime No.72 of 2014 of

Milardevpally P.S., Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S. Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and also

the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused

the record.

3. Initially, this Court granted interim stay of investigation as

far as the petitioners are concerned, by order dated 05.03.2014.

4. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime

No.72 of 2014 of Milardevpally P.S. for the offences under

Sections 420, 468, 447, 120-B r/w.34 of IPC, basing on the private

complaint preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein on the file of

VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, alleging that the

respondents have purchased open plot admeasuring 500 square

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

yards covered by Plot No.13 in Sy.No.48 of 2010 situated at

Katedan Industrial area, Shivarampally village, Rajendranagar

Mandal and Municipality, Ranga Reddy District under two

registered sale deeds dated 14.08.2006 for 250 square yards each,

from one Kanyalal Sharma, who had acquired part of the plot

admeasuring 250 square yards through a registered gift deed dated

28.06.1994 executed by one Rameshchand Sharma and another to

an extent of 250 square yards through registered sale deed bearing

document No.6174 of 1981. The said Kanyalal Sharma and his

brother Rameshchand Sharma in turn purchased the subject plot

admeasuring 500 square yards from one Smt. K.Sarojana, who had

purchased the said plot under registered sale deed dated 02.07.1978

from Bogala Jangaiah i.e. the father of the petitioners/accused

Nos.4 to 7. Ever since the purchase of the plots, respondent Nos.2

and 3 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. While

so, the petitioners-Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are engaged in real

estate business and having acquaintance with the officials of

Revenue Department, by colluding with the other

petitioners/accused, brought into existence the document bearing

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

No.5207 of 2013, dated 26.06.2013 in favour of the 3rd

petitioner/accused No.3, executed by petitioner Nos.4 to 7 and

figuring themselves as witnesses for the sale deed.

Petitioners/accused Nos.4 to 7 have absolutely no title over the

plots sold under the sale deeds since their father sold away the

subject lands in 1979 itself and with an intention to cheat

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to cause wrongful loss to them, the

petitioners/accused have brought into existence the sale deed dated

26.06.2013, and are even making hectic attempts to trespass into

the subject plots. Being aggrieved by it, respondent Nos.2 and 3

have also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.1312 of 2013 on the file of III

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, by

accused No.3 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of perpetual

injunction, and therefore, all the petitioners are liable to be

prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that

without looking into the contents of the complaint, the learned

Magistrate has referred the same to the Police for investigation, for

which, a case was registered against them and that the petitioners

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

are innocent and they are in no way connected with the alleged

offences, and therefore, the criminal proceedings against them are

liable to be quashed at the threshold. It is the specific contention of

the petitioners herein that the allegations made in the complaint

even if are taken at their face value and accepted, they do not even

prima facie constitute any offence and further, the property

purchased by respondent Nos.2 and 3 through two registered sale

deeds dated 14.08.2006 is not the property purchased by

petitioner/accused No.3, under the sale deed dated 26.06.2013. It

is also contended that the plots purchased by respondent Nos.2 and

3 are situated at Shivarampally revenue village and the plots

purchased by the petitioner/accused No.3 are situated in Katedan

revenue village, and therefore, the contention that the petitioners

having conspired, brought into existence the sale deed of accused

No.3, is far from truth and baseless. Further, the civil suit filed by

the petitioner/accused No.3 against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for

grant of perpetual injunction itself is a positive proof and therefore,

prayed to quash the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.72 of

2014 on the file of Milardevpally P.S., Cyberabad.

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

6. On the other hand, Sri S. Ganesh, the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 has contended

that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein cannot

be quashed at the threshold, as the allegations are to be tried before

the trial Court.

7. Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that the

property purchased by respondent Nos.2 and 3, in fact, is the same

property purchased by petitioner/accused No.3 and the suit filed by

the plaintiff was decreed and that has no bearing against the

criminal proceedings, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the quash

petition.

8. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that

the father of petitioner/accused No.3 died in the year 1979 and

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the property and are in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The link

document show that the father of petitioner Nos.4 to 7 i.e. one

Bogala Jangaiah had sold the property to one Smt. K.Sarojana on

02.07.1978, who in turn, sold the property to others. Though it is

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

the contention of the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 and 3

purchased the property under two registered sale deeds dated

14.08.2006, whereas, the petitioner/accused No.3 purchased the

property on 26.06.2013 and both the lands are different and the

lands of respondent Nos.2 and 3 are situated at Shivarampalli,

whereas, the lands of petitioner No.3 are situated at Katedan

revenue village, that cannot be looked into while dealing with the

quash petition, as it is a matter to be decided after full-fledged trial.

Moreover, the plaint copy of the suit clearly disclose that the suit

schedule property is situated at Katedan village, Rajendranagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, it is relating to a house property

bearing H.No.6-4-80/1/A, admeasuring 400 square yards in Ward

No.6, Block No.4, of Sy.No.48/10, situated at Katedan village,

through the sale deed dated 14.08.2006, whereas, the property

purchased by respondent Nos.2 and 3 is shown as Plot No.13,

Sy.No.48/10, situated at Katedan industrial area, Shivarampally,

which means that the property is situated at Katedan industrial area

of Shivarampalli village and it is a matter of fact to be adduced by

way of evidence at the time of trial.

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

9. The learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the

judgment of Apex Court in Mohd. Khalid Khan v. State of Uttar

Pradesh & another1, wherein, it is held as under:

"By virtue of the impugned order, the applications filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been dismissed by the High Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and upon hearing them, we find that a Suit and a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sarita Purohit First Appeal are pending on the subject matter of the present litigation and the issue with regard to ownership of the land in question is yet to be finalised in the said Suit and in the First Appeal.

In the circumstances, we would not like to pass any observation which might adversely affect any of the parties in pending civil litigation.

Suffice it to say at this stage that while rejecting the applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court had considered certain facts which prima facie might not be correct. Some observations with regard to the oral gift (Hiba) have been made which, according to us, are not correct, as we do not find the same in the sale deed which had been executed in favour of the present appellants.

Looking at the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that at this stage no case has been made out against the present appellants for initiating any criminal proceedings. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order so far as the present appellants are concerned and quash the process issued against them and also the charge-sheet filed against the present appellants in pursuance of First Information

AIR 2015 SC 3656

GAC, J Crl.P.No.2153 of 2014

Report No.332 of 2005 dated 31st October, 2005 lodged at Police Station, Wazirganj, District Lucknow."

10. The learned counsel for petitioners has also relied on the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraj v. State

of Gujarat & others2, wherein, it is held as under:

"Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.

In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.

In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (7) SCC 495, relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

"A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out.""