Smt. Jilla Saritha Dilip vs K.Padma Rao
2023 Latest Caselaw 1133 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.14 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. Petitioner is the defacto complainant, who filed a private

complaint before the concerned Magistrate and referred to

Rajenderangar Police Station for the purpose of investigation.

The said complaint was registered as Crime No.148 of 2016 for

the offence under Sections 420, 464,406, 448, 427, 447 r/w

Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of A.P Land Grabbing Act.

However, after registration, the police investigated the case

and referred the complaint as 'civil in nature'.

2. Aggrieved by the police referring the complaint as civil in

nature, protest petition was filed vide Crl.M.P.No.516 of 2018

before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendernagar, praying the Court to take cognizance of the

offences against the Accused Nos.1 to 8 mentioned in the

private complaint. The said petition was disposed by order

dated 06.12.2018 declining the prayer for taking cognizance of

the offences against the respondents on the ground that there

is no sufficient material to proceed against the accused,

accordingly, the protest petition was dismissed. The present

revision is filed questioning the order of the learned Magistrate

declining to take cognizance of the offences.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the

petitioner/defacto complainant purchased 20 guntas of land

at Hyderguda for Rs.4.50 lakhs from one Yadireddy in the year

2002. One person namely Nooruddin took the original

document from the petitioner in the month of June, 2004. The

said Nooruddin along with Padma Rao/A1 obtained signatures

on certain documents for the purpose of loan. K.Padmarao/

1st respondent paid an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and promised

to pay balance of Rs.4.00 lakhs the next day. Padma Rao

obtained signatures of petitioner on agreement of sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney documents without disclosing the

contents.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner herein approached an Advocate

and on his advise, the agreement of sale-cum-GPA document

was cancelled at the Sub-Registrar Office and also filed a civil

suit vide OS No.1697 of 2004 in Rangareddy Court. Padmarao

and another, respondents 1 & 2 herein, filed a suit in

O.S.No.1155 of 2009 against the petitioner herin in respect of

the said property. In the year 2013, the suit filed by the

respondents was dismissed and also the petitioner's suit was

also dismissed. Petitioner preferred A.S.No.105 of 2014.

According to petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 herein and others

trespassed into the land and damaged structures and also the

plants and trees in the said property. Further during the

pendency of Civil Suits, Padma Rao and others (shown as

accused), sold away the property to different persons. A private

complaint was filed and the police referred the case as civil in

nature. Protest petition was filed, which was also dismissed.

5. Learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate having examined

this petitioner as P.W.1 and also P.W.2, who is the husband of

this petitioner found that the petitioner filed O.S.No.1697 of

2004 for cancellation of agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed

in favour of 1st and 2nd respondents. However, the said suit

was dismissed on 25.06.2013. The 1st and 2nd respondent filed

a suit in O.S.No.1155 of 2009 aggrieved by the cancellation of

the agreement of sale-cum-GPA by this petitioner in favour of

1st and 2nd respondents. Learned Magistrate found that the

transactions in between the parties are purely civil in nature

and prima facie no criminal case was not made out against

any of the respondents to proceed with criminal trial. The

Magistrate relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of

Uttaranchal and others [AIR 2008 SC 251] and also the case

of Anjani Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [AIR 2008 SC

1992] wherein it was held that there cannot be any

jurisdiction before a criminal Court when the transactions are

purely civil in nature and criminal Court proceedings should

not be a weapon of harassment. Accordingly, with the said

findings, the protest petition filed by this petitioner was

dismissed.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that there are several transactions which have been

suppressed and the 1st and 2nd respondents, who induced the

petitioner into registering the document, which is agreement of

sale-cum-General Power of Attorney. Thereafter, the property

was transferred in favour of respondents 3 to 7 on 20.12.2013

by executing seven registered sale deeds on the very same day.

It was further argued that taking advantage of the order in

O.S.No.1697 of 2004, the structures in the property were

demolished and though Crime No.923 of 2013 was registered,

no action was taken. On 16.01.2016, all the respondents 1 to7

and others had trespassed into the premises and tried to grab

the property. Though the possession of the property was with

the petitioner, the respondents have indulged in transferring

the property in between them without actual possession. For

the said reason, the respondents have to be tried for the

criminal offences punishable under Sections 406, 448, 427,

447 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents would support the findings of the learned

Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance on the protest

petition. Learned counsel argued that the disputes which are

purely civil in nature are being given a cloak of criminality and

falsely prosecuting the 2nd respondent to settle civil disputes.

8. The powers of the High Court in revision under Section

397 and 401 of Cr.P.C can be for the purpose of examining

any proceedings before the Lower Courts regarding the

correctness, legality, propriety in findings. Unless there is any

illegality, which has been committed by the lower Court, the

High Court under revisional powers cannot interfere.

9. Admittedly, the transaction in between the petitioner and

A1 had taken place in the month of June, 2004 and there were

many transactions in between them thereafter. Aggrieved by

one another, they have already approached civil Court and the

civil Court dismissed the suits filed by the complainant and 1st

and 2nd respondents. Though the differences arose in the year

2004, criminal complaint is filed nearly after 12 years of the

transactions. Though there is an allegation of fabrication of

record, no such exercise was undertaken to ascertain

regarding the document, which was fabricated.

10. The parties having entered into registered documents by

way of an agreement of sale-cum-GPA cannot allege after 12

years that cheating had taken place at the relevant time in the

year 2004. It is not as though any fact had come to their

knowledge for the first time in the year 2016. All along the

parties have been fighting before the civil Courts.

11. There should be an intention to cheat from the inception

to attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC. There is

nothing mentioned in the compliant to infer that the

respondents entertained any intention of cheating the

complainant. Further, there are no documents which are

allegedly fabricated by the respondents. As found by the

learned Magistrate, the transactions in between the

complainant and the respondents are purely civil in nature.

Accordingly, the revision questioning the orders of the learned

Magistrate refusing to take cognizance is liable to be dismissed

as the findings of the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault

with.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:10.03.2023 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.14 OF 2020

Date: 10.03.2023

kvs