Dr. Paidipalli Narasimha Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1057 Tel

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.10574 of 2022

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.3885 of 2022 on the file of

XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally,

Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of

IPC.

2. The 2nd respondent namely H.Ramesh filed complaint

before the Jubilee Hills Police stating that he is the owner of

H.No.1016/A admeasuring 720 sq.yds in Road No.51, Jubilee

Hills out of a total extent of 1422 sq.yds of the petitioner in the

year 1996. In the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd

respondent by the GPA holder of the petitioner, road was

shown on the northern side of the plot. However, the GHMC

Vigilance cell issued notice on 11.01.2022 stating that the

approach road to his house is encroached land forming part of

the green belt. If the approach road is closed, the 2nd

respondent will not have ingress and egress facility to his

property and the petitioner herein had fraudulently

misrepresented that the northern side of the plot was road and

sold it to him, suppressing that it was GHMC property. For the

said reason, on the basis of a complaint by 2nd Respondent,

police investigated and filed charge sheet for the offence under

Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that there is no fraudulent inducement made by the

petitioner herein, who had sold his plot in the year 1996 itself

to the 2nd respondent through GPA holder(A2). In fact, the 2nd

respondent, has written to the society, which is Jubilee Hills

Cooperative House Building Society for modification of the

approved plan and for regularization of the approach road,

which is to the Northern side of his plot. The 2nd respondent

had addressed letters to the MCH, the Society and also the

Municipal Commissioner in the said regard. In the said

circumstances, when the 2nd respondent was having

knowledge about all the facts, the question of cheating by the

petitioner does not arise. Accordingly, prayed to quash the

proceedings. In support of his contentions, he relied on the

following judgments: i) State of Haryana and others v.

Bhajanlal and others1; ii) Prof. R.K.Vijayasarathy v. Sudha

Seetharam2; iii) Binod Kumar and others v. State of Bihar3; iv)

Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka4; v) Randheer

Singh v. State of U.P5 and vi) Mohammed Ibrahim and others

v. State of Bihar6.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent would submit that it is a clear case of cheating

committed by the petitioner with the help of A2. Having

knowledge that the northern side of the plot was not road, but

the property of the GHMC, it was falsely mentioned as road

when the plot was sold to the 2nd respondent. It is the

responsibility of the petitioner to give ingress and egress to the

plot of the 2nd respondent through his plot. Earlier, the plot

was 1422 sq.yds which had access and the petitioner had

cheated the 2nd respondent by selling half of the plot by

showing the land belonging to MCH as the road for approach,

for the said reason, the proceedings cannot be quashed and

1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335

(2019) 16 SCC 739

(2014) 10 SCC 663

2021 SCC OnLine SC 976

2021 SCC OnLine SC 942

(2009) 8 SCC 751

the petitioner has to be tried for the offence of cheating and

criminal misappropriation.

5. Admittedly, half of the plot which belongs to this

petitioner was sold in the year 1996. The present complaint is

filed after 26 years stating that this petitioner has cheated

him. The 2nd respondent had approached both the municipal

authorities and also the society for regularizing the approach

road, which is on the northern side of his plot. He also field

W.P.No.7936 of 2005 before this Court and this Court by order

dated 09.12.2009 left option open to the 2nd respondent to

make appropriate representation seeking permission for usage

of the land which belongs to the GHMC and he was using it as

ingress and egress to the plot.

6. To attract an offence of cheating, there has to be

fraudulent inducement by a person and believing the same,

the person induced should have delivered property. In the

present case, plot was purchased in the year 1996 and 2nd

respondent also constructed the building in the said land and

was using northern side of the road. He was making attempts

by approaching the Society and also municipal authorities and

the Courts to get access to his plot from the northern side.

After 26 years, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent did

not have knowledge about the said issue pertaining to the plot

which he purchased in the year 1996.

7. Further, to attract an offence of criminal

misappropriation under Section 406 of IPC, it has to be

established that the petitioner was entrusted with certain

property which was converted to his own use by criminal

misappropriation. There is no such allegation in the

complaint. In the present facts of the case, the 2nd respondent

having purchased the plot in the year 1996 and having

knowledge about ingress and egress to the plot and having

taken steps before the various forums, cannot now allege that

he was cheated by the petitioner herein after a period of 26

years. The remedy against the petitioner is by approaching the

Civil Court as the petitioner is bound to give ingress and

egress to the plot which he has sold to the 2nd respondent.

8. On the facts of the case, none of the ingredients of either

cheating punishable under Section 420 or criminal

misappropriation punishable under Section 406 of IPC are

made out against this petitioner.

9. It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner had in

fact given GPA in respect of the plot to A2. It was A2, who had

registered the plot in favour of 2nd respondent herein. It cannot

be said that the 2nd respondent, without looking into any of

the issues pertaining to the plot had purchased the same in

the year 1996.

10. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioner in

C.C.No.3885 of 2022 on the file of XVII Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby

quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand disposed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:03.03.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10574 of 2022

Dated: 03.03.2023

kvs