Telangana High Court
Kasula Karunakar Goud And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana on 6 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10575 OF 2022
Between:
Kasula Karunakar Goud and 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: 06.02.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
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. 10575 of 2022
% Dated 06.02.2023
# Kasula Karunakar Goud and 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: Sri T.Prasanna Kumar
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri Police Venkat Reddy for R2
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10575 of 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.312 of 2022 on the file
of XX Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad.
2. The 2nd petitioner filed a complaint stating that he
executed registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of
Attorney in favour of A1 on 09.12.2014 for a consideration of
Rs.80.00 lakhs in respect of land admeasuring Acs.1.11 gts in
Sy.No.35, situated at Thumkunta village. At the time of
registration of the document, the petitioners allegedly shown
two DDs Rs.40.00 lakhs in favor of the 2nd respondent.
Believing the accused, the 2nd respondent registered the
document. However, the 2nd respondent found that the said
DDs which were shown to have obtained in his favour for
Rs.40 lakhs each were in fact taken for an amount of Rs.400/-
and the said DDS were fabricated as Rs.40.00 lakhs. For the
said reason, the petitioners have cheated the 2nd respondent.
Accordingly, complaint was filed and petitioners were charge-
sheeted for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,
471, 474 r/w 34 IPC and 506 of IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
said registered document was in the year 2014 and the
present complaint is filed with a delay of eight years making
false allegations. He further submits that as seen from the
said document No.3786 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014, it is a
registered document and it is mentioned in the document that
total consideration of Rs.25,50,000/- was already received. In
the said circumstances, the allegation that Rs.80.00 lakhs
DD's were shown and got the document registered in their
favour cannot be accepted. Since there is steep increase in the
prices of land, false complaint is made to extract money from
the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty and another
v. State of West Bengal1 and argued that when the
transactions are predominantly civil in nature, when it is given
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67
a cloak of criminal offence, the same has to be quashed.
Criminal proceedings cannot be filed to intimidate the parties.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent and
petitioners are all closely related. For the said reason, the 2nd
respondent registered the land in favour of 1st and 2nd
petitioners with an understanding that Rs.80.00 lakhs would
be given and the value shown in the document is government
value. Having shown the said DDs for Rs.80.00 lakhs the said
DDs were not handed over prior to registration stating that
they would be handed over after registration. After
registration, the DD's were not given. In the said
circumstances, civil suit in O.S.No.351 of 2018 was filed for
cancellation of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed in
favour of the 1st petitioner and the same was decreed in favour
of the 2nd respondent. The II Additional District Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri while passing orders in O.S.No.351 of
2018 cancelled the document executed in favour of petitioners
1 and 2. Further, the DDs which were produced by the 1st and
2nd petitioners were enquired during investigation and the
Bank has intimated the police that the said bankers cheques
were issued for Rs.400/- and not Rs.40.00 lakhs.
6. Having perused the record, the document in question is
agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession executed by the
2nd respondent in favour of A1 which is document No.3786 of
2014. A1 thereafter executed sale deed in favour of A2, who is
his brother, which is document No.1370 of 2016, dated
12.05.2016. The allegation of the 2nd respondent is that said
document was executed when two DDs for Rs.40.00 lakhs
each were shown to him and believing them, 2nd respondent
registered the property. The police, during the course of
investigation examined the Officer of the State Bank of
Hyderabad and DDs bearing Nos.600017232740 and
600017232741 and according to investigation, it was informed
by the Bank that they issued for Rs.400/- and not for
Rs.40.00 lakhs.
7. Though there is a mention that the 1st and 2nd petitioners
have shown the bankers' cheques, the said document is of the
year 2014 and executed in favour of A1. It is the bald
statement and assumption of the 2nd respondent that the 2nd
petitioner was also involved in fabricating the DDs. The said
DDs are not sent to the expert to ascertain that the 2nd
petitioner/A2 is involved in any manner in fabricating the said
DDs.
8. The alleged fraud committed by A1 for transferring the
property on to his name and the subsequent transfer by A1 in
favour of A2, both the documents were questioned before the
civil court and the civil court had cancelled the said document.
9. To attract an offence under Section 420 IPC, there
should have been a fraudulent inducement subsequent to
which the property must have been delivered. The first
petitioner had shown such DDs and the registration was done
in his favor. Whether there was any such fraudulent
misrepresentation and as to any DDs were taken in the name
of the 2nd respondent by the 1st petitioner, can only be
explained during the course of trial and same cannot be
ascertained in a quash proceeding.
10. Under Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, when the
terms of any disposition of property is reduced into the form of
document, no evidence would be admitted between the parties
contradicting its terms. The said provision would not come to
the aid of the petitioners for the reason of fraud allegedly being
played upon, pursuant to which the document was registered
in favour of A1.
11. For the foregoing discussion, the proceedings against A2
in C.C.No.312 of 2022 on the file of XX Metropolitan
Magistrate are only quashed since no useful purpose would be
served in continuing the criminal prosecution against him.
However, the trial Court is directed to proceed against A1 and
A3 for the alleged offences against them.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed. As a
consequence, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in
this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date :06.02.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10575 of 2022
Date: 06.02.2023
kvs
