Telangana High Court
B.Rudramma vs The State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.9473 OF 2021
Between:
B.Rudramma and three others ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 26.04.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 9473 of 2021
% Dated 26.04.2023
# B.Rudramma and three others ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.D.Madhavi
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri P.Ranjit Kumar Reddy for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
(2009)1 SCC 69
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 206
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9473 of 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.4429 of
2021 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
L.B.Nagar for the offences under Sections 420, 441, 447, 427,
506 r/w 120-B of IPC.
2. The grievance of the 2nd respondent is that he had
purchased open plots in Sy.No.8 and 9, situated at
Chengicherla village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from R.Satyanarayana on
12.05.2014 by way of registered sale document. Further the
plots originally belonged to one Smt. Bharathi Rao. The Land
Reforms Tribunal vide C.C.No.1627/E/75 declared that she
is the holder of land admeasuring Acs.8.09 guntas.
3. The 2nd respondent visited the plots and he found that
one Srinivas Goud (A4) illegally encroached upon the plots by
constructing a wall and gate was also erected. When
questioned, the said Srinivas Goud (A4) informed that he
purchased Acs.2.00 from B.Rudramma rep. by her GPA
holder R.Venkateshwar Goud on 08.04.2005. The 2nd
respondent came to know that the 1st petitioner created
unregistered agreements dated 12.12.1979 stating that she
has purchased the land from Bharathi Rao from their
respective unregistered GPA holders. According to the
complaint, the 1st petitioner and others have fabricated
unregistered documents and started selling plots. The 1st
petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10031 of
2019 questioning the notice dated 03.05.2019 of the HMDA
stating that development layout from HMDA was not obtained
and the layout was unauthorized. This Court, while disposing
of the writ petition directed the concerned authorities to
examine the reply given by the 1st petitioner and others.
4. The Commissioner, Boduppal Municipal Corporation
addressed a letter dated 26.09.2020 asking the 1st petitioner
and others to approach the Court regarding the ownership of
plots. The said letter itself indicates that the petitioners had
fabricated documents according to the 2nd respondent.
5. According to the 2nd respondent on 09.10.2020, Srinivas
Goud (A4) along with henchmen obstructed the 2nd
respondent from entering into his plot and when questioned,
they attacked him. For the reason of encroachment by the
petitioners herein, police were requested to take criminal
action. However, they refused, for which reason, the 2nd
respondent approached the Court and filed private complaint.
On reference by the Magistrate, the police investigated the
case and found that the 1st petitioner created unregistered
agreement dated 12.12.1979 alleging that she has purchased
the land from K.Bharathi Rao and V.Padmini Devi and
validated the documents under Section 5-A of Records of
Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 vide proceedings in
File No.ROR/5-A/34/89 with the help of A4. In the year
2002, 1st Petitioner/A1 gave GPA to A4 vide registered
document No.6919 of 2002 to an extent of Acs.2.00. The 1st
petitioner also gave GPA to A2 to the extent of Acs.2.00 vide
document No.6918 of 2002. Similarly, A1 also gave registered
GPA vide document No.5171/2005 to an extent of Acs.4.17
guntas. Accordingly, police filed charge sheet against A1 to
A4 for the offences mentioned supra.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the
property and the question of cheating or otherwise does not
arise. The 2nd respondent had deliberately purchased the
property though he has no right and trying to pressurize the
petitioners by filing false criminal complaint. The police had
earlier registered two crimes which are Cr.No.579 of 2004
and Crime No.447 of 2006 and also Crime No.666 of 2016 in
respect of the very same property and all the crimes were
closed as civil in nature.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if
there is any dispute, it is purely civil in nature. It is for the
civil Court to decide whether the petitioners have right over
the property or not and the police cannot file charge sheet for
the offence of cheating.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
2nd respondent would submit that it is clear from the
investigation that the 1st petitioner did not have any right
over the property. However, she has given GPA to the
petitioners 2 to 4. It is a clear case of cheating for which
reason, proceedings cannot be quashed.
9. Learned counsel relied on the judgment reported in the
case of Sri Krishna Agencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh1, in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no bar
for simultaneous continuation of criminal case and civil
proceedings if the facts make out a criminal prosecution
apart from civil remedies that lies with the party. He also
relied on the judgment reported in the case of Priti Saraf and
another v. State of NCT of Delhi and another2. In the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case there
is a remedy for breach of contract, which was invoked by the
complainant that itself would not be a ground to quash the
proceedings when the transactions make out an offence of
cheating and Criminal misappropriation punishable under
Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
(2009)1 SCC 69
2021 SCC OnLine SC 206
10. The investigation was conducted by the police and
during the course of investigation, it was found that the 1st
petitioner had entered into unregistered agreement of sale
with one Bharathi Rao and another and thereafter, it was
regularized. On the basis of documents available with her,
she has executed registered GPA in favour of A2 to A4. The
2nd respondent is claiming his rights over the said property
on the ground that he has purchased the said plots from one
R.Satyanarayana r/o Secunderabad through registered sale
deeds, registered before the SRO, Ranga Reddy District. The
link documents were inspected and Investigating Officer has
found that it was Bharathi Rao and another who had also
sold the properties. In the case of 1st petitioner and also the
complainant when the sale is traced, both of them are
claiming that Bharathi Rao is the person who sold the
property. Charge sheet is filed for the offence of cheating.
11. To attract an offence of cheating, essential ingredients
are act of fraudulent deception pursuant to which a person
should have delivered property, thereby causing wrongful
loss. In the present case, it is for the civil Court to decide who
has title over the said property. The police cannot decide the
rightful owner when two parties are claiming ownership
tracing back to the very same vendor/seller of the property. It
is for the civil Court to decide who has better title and who
the owner of the property is.
12. The case is purely civil in nature, even according to the
complaint, the 1st petitioner never met the complainant and
only on the enquiries of the 2nd respondent/ complainant he
came to know that A1/1st petitioner had purchased the
property. Thereafter, gave GPA in favour of A2 to A4. For the
said reason, when the 2nd respondent has no confirmation or
declaration by a competent civil Court about his claim of
ownership over the said land, the question of prosecuting the
petitioners in a criminal case on the basis of the findings of
the Investigating Officer that the land belongs to the 2nd
respondent cannot be permitted. The Investigating Officer
cannot decide the rights and claims of two different parties
over the property. It is for the civil Court to decide regarding
the rights and in the present case, the remedy is to approach
the civil Court.
13. The transactions in question are purely civil in nature
and to be decided by the civil Court. It is not the case of the
police that during the course of investigation, it was found
that these petitioners had fabricated any documents as
alleged by the 2nd respondent. For the aforementioned
reasons, criminal prosecution cannot be maintained against
the petitioners.
14. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/
Accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.4429 of 2021 on the file of III
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, are hereby
quashed.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,
shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.04.2023.
Note: L.R copy to be marked
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Petition No.9473 of 2021
Date:26.04.2023
kvs
