Telangana High Court
Mohammed Hassan vs The State Of Telangana on 10 January, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10439 OF 2022
Between:
Mohammed Hassan & Another ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & Another
... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 10.01.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see 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 Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 10439 of 2022
% Dated 10.01.2023
#Mohammed Hassan & Another ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad & Another
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. Mohd Gulam Rassol
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan,
Additional Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri A.L.Raju for R2.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10439 OF 2022
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners in C.C.No.1470 of 2019 on the file of
III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,
Hyderabad, for the offences under section 420, 406, 354,
506 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 promised to
construct a residential building in the plot of the 2nd
respondent situated at Road No.10 Banjara Hills. Initially
an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs was collected and promised to
complete the construction within a time frame of 18
months. Total amount of Rs.1,06,20,628/- was given by the
complainant and according to him, construction was worth
only Rs.50.00 lakhs. However A1 absconded without
completing the work. The complainant/2nd respondent
traced the 1st petitioner and pursued with the payment of
remaining amount. On 20.09.2018 at 7.00 p.m, both the
petitioners entered into the house of complainant and
abused the complainant and went away with the
complainant's hand bag. The hand bag contained blank
cheque books and other important documents. Suspecting
that the cheques would be misused, 'stop payment'
instructions were given to the Bank. Again on 07.10.2018,
both the petitioners trespassed into the house of the
complainant along with some others and abused him and
his wife. The petitioners threatened that they would
eliminate all the family members. After the said incident,
complaint was lodged with the Banjara Hills Police Station
on 10.10.2018. The Police, Banjara Hills P.S called the
petitioner, who stated that the MOU documents and
cheques were all destroyed. However, one cheque for
Rs.5.00 lakhs was presented, but the same was returned
unpaid for the reason of the 'stop payment' directions from
the complainant. On 04.07.2019 around 9.30 a.m, two
persons stopped the complainant and threatened to transfer
an amount of Rs.80.00 lakhs in the name of the 1st
petitioner, failing which, the said persons threatened of dire
consequences. Aggrieved by the said acts, a complaint was
again filed with the Banjara Hills Police Station on
05.07.2019. The police having investigated the case, filed
charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that though there was settlement in between the
parties on 07.09.2019 and 05.08.2019, the petitioners have
been falsely implicated and prosecuted. Since there is an
outstanding, the complainant has deliberately made false
accusations of criminal trespass and filed the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent would submit that the petitioners have
trespassed into the premises of the complainant and
assaulted the complainant and his wife amounting to
criminal offence of trespass and outraging the modesty of
woman. He further submits that the amount was taken for
the purpose of construction and the petitioners have
misappropriated the amount and cheated the complainant.
5. Having perused the record, the allegation is that an
amount of Rs.1,06,20,628/- was taken by A1 for
construction. However, the completed construction work
was estimated as only Rs.50.00 lakhs by the complainant.
The said allegation has no scientific basis or any logical
basis to assess that the construction amount was only to
the extent of Rs.50.00 lakhs. The quality and cost of
material used for construction would have huge variance in
terms of prices, for which reason, only a scientific method or
actual construction cost of materials and labor can only
divulge the details of the expenditure incurred. Admittedly,
when the construction was done, the question of having any
criminal intention from the inception to cheat is not made
out. For the said reason, no offence is made out under
Section 420 of IPC.
6. For the very same reasons mentioned in the above
paragraph regarding the offence not being made out under
Section 420 of IPC, the question of criminal
misappropriation does not arise. A vague statement that
construction cost was only Rs.50.00 lakhs when
Rs.1.06,20,628/- was given, cannot form basis to frame a
charge under Section 406 of IPC.
7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that though the alleged incident of trespass and snatching
away the bag had taken place nearly eight months prior to
the complaint, it is highly improbable that no complaint was
lodged at the earliest point of time. All the incidents
narrated in the complaint have been falsely made up for the
purpose of prosecuting the petitioners in a criminal offence.
8. As seen from the complaint, though there arises any
amount of suspicion regarding the correctness of the
allegations, in view of the differences and disputes between
the parties, it cannot be decided whether such an incident
of criminal trespass and assault had taken place or not in
the quash proceedings. Only when the witnesses are
examined by the prosecution and the accused have a
chance of cross-examining the witnesses, the court would
be in a position to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of
the allegations made by the complainant.
9. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution under
Section 420 and 406 of IPC are quashed. However the trial
Court is at liberty to frame appropriate charges on the basis
of the allegations mentioned in the complaint.
10. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is
partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous
applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 10.01.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10439 OF 2022
Date: 10.01.2023.
kvs
