Telangana High Court
Yenugudhati Chandrashekhar And ... vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 1 November, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9118 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioners/A-2 and A-3 to call for the records relating to
proceedings in C.C.No.495 of 2016, on the file of VI
Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad and quash
the same. The offences alleged against them are under
Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-2 and A-3
and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-
State. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that he
saw an advertisement in a daily newspaper and accordingly,
he approached the 1st petitioner herein who is arrayed as
A-2. A-2 informed that the plot belongs to his brother-in-
law/A-1. The 2nd respondent negotiated for the purchase of
the plot for an amount of Rs.41 lakhs and paid Rs.28 lakhs
in all. It is alleged that Rs.10 lakhs was paid through RTGS
to the account of A-2 which details were given by A-1. They
have entered into a sale agreement. However, the 2nd
respondent came to know that the said plot was mortgaged
with the bank and A-1 has taken loan from the bank. When
de-facto complainant asked to register the said plot in his
name, A-1 and these petitioners refused and threatened the
de-facto complainant.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police,
Jeedimetla registered FIR and filed charge sheet.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that even according to the complaint, the property
belongs to A-1 and agreement of sale was also entered into
by A-1. Further in the year, 2023, a civil suit was also filed
by the 2nd respondent against A-1, which is pending
adjudication before the Civil Court.
6. Learned counsel further argued that any attempt to
show a civil dispute as criminal offence, High Court is
competent to quash the said proceedings under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
7. In support of his contentions, he relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Prof. R.K.
Vijayasarathy And Another vs. Sudha Seetharam And
Another 1. He also relied on Prem Kumar vs. State of
Rajasthan And Another 2, wherein it was held that when no
steps were taken for more than 10 years by the vendee, for
which reason, the proceedings were quashed in the facts of
the case. He further relied on Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh And Another 3, where in it was held that
when the Civil Court was adjudicating the very same issue,
allowing the criminal proceedings to continue without any
criminal element having been established, would be abuse of
process of law.
8. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor that though the plot belongs to
A-1, it was A-2 who had introduced A-1 and also mediated in
the transactions and both these petitioners/A-2 and A-3
acted as witnesses in the document of agreement of sale.
Whether they have committed cheating is the subject of
(2019) 16 SCC 739
(2020) 20 SCC 623
(2020) 12 SCC 51
matter of trial and can be decided after giving opportunity to
the complainant to adduce the evidence.
9. Admittedly, the plot belongs to A-1 and no where it is
mentioned that these petitioners have any idea about the
plot being mortgaged to the bank. Admittedly, A-1 had
issued advertisement in the newspaper pursuant to which
the de-facto complainant had contacted them for the
purchase of the said plot. Moreover, the de-facto
complainant also resorted to filing of a civil suit in the said
transaction against A-1.
10. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there
has to be an act of deception pursuant to which, the person
deceived should have parted with property. Knowledge of
factum of mortgaging the property and obtaining loan is not
attributed to these petitioners. They have brokered the deal
in between with the de-facto complainant and A-1. It cannot
be said that these petitioners had any intention to cheat the
de-facto complainant.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in C.C.No.495 of 2016, on the file of VI
Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Cyberabad, against the
petitioners/A-2 and A-3 are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 01.11.2023
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9118 of 2016
Dt.01.11.2023
dv
