Kandula , Bathula Padmanjali vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3770 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                         CRL.P.No.8528 OF 2015
                                   And
                     CRL.R.C.Nos.721 and 266 of 2019


COMMON ORDER :

1     Heard Sri H.Sudhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri Mohd. Zafrullah, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent and Sri

Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

2 Since the point involved in all these cases is intertwined and since

the parties to all the cases are one and the same, all these matters are

being disposed of by this common order.

3 Criminal Petition No.8528 of 2015 was filed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of

the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

4 Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are wife and husband and first petitioner is

their younger daughter. The second respondent is the husband of the

first petitioner and son-in-law of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. The second

respondent lodged a complaint before the Saroornagar Police Station on

14.10.2013 against the petitioners which was registered as a case in

Cr.No.1253 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and

406 of IPC. The case of the second respondent in the above case was

that his marriage with the first petitioner was performed on 29.7.2001.

The second respondent was working in USA as software engineer. The

first petitioner completed her BDS course. The first petitioner joined the

second respondent in USA in 2001, but by afflux of time, she lost

affection and love towards the second respondent and the petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 added fuel to the fire as the second respondent did not heed

to their advice and demand. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 advised the first

petitioner to take divorce from the second respondent and compelled the

second respondent and made him to execute a divorce settlement deed

under threat and fear of getting him and his family members jailed by

falsely alleging cruelty and harassment upon his wife. A petition for

mutual divorce was filed. Thereafter, the first petitioner and the second

respondent left for USA separately and were living separately there.

Subsequently, the second respondent returned to India and came to

know that the mutual consent petition filed by the first petitioner was

withdrawn by the second petitioner styling himself as GPA for the first

petitioner. On demand, the second respondent deposited Rs.35,26,600/-

in the name of his minor daughter. The second respondent was shown

as guardian for the minor daughter though the first petitioner and the

second respondent are alive. He also left and relinquished his

right/title/interest over his flat and 2,303 sq. yards of land at Medchal,

subject to his wife's paying Rs.23,60,453/- within six months from

03.3.2008, yet she has not paid it under instigation and guidance of the

petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Though the first petitioner was in USA since

March, 2008, P.W.2 filed false complaint in Court and got registered FIR

No.1073 of 2008 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 420 IPC at P.S,

Saroornagar. Therefore, the second respondent lodged the above

complaint which was registered as a case in Cr.No.1253 of 2008 under

Sections 420 and 406 IPC. After investigating into the case, the police

filed charge sheet, which was numbered as C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the

file of the Court of the Court of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, L.B.Nagar.

5 Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Crl.P.No.14765 of 2013,

which was disposed on 12.08.2014 with a direction to the trial Court to

proceed with the trial of the case, but the presence of the petitioners

shall not be pressed for each and every adjournment.

6 Contending that some important questions were not raised in the

earlier quash proceedings, the petitioners filed the present criminal

petition. The first petitioner filed a case in 61-FA-09-2069, dated

06.10.2010 before the District Court, Second Judicial District, Family

Court Division, State of Minnesota, Country of Ramsey, USA, in terms of

the settlement agreement dated 28.02.2008 executed between the first

petitioner and the second respondent wherein the USA court passed

judgment dissolving the marriage between the first petitioner and the

second respondent and that the second respondent herein admitted

before the Family Court at USA with regard to transfer of funds to a tune

of Rs.35,26,600/- to their minor daughter voluntarily and without the

knowledge of the first petitioner. The said money stands in their

daughter's name. The second respondent himself introduced the second

petitioner as guardian for the minor girl, therefore, there is no prima

facie case against the petitioners. It is the further contention of the

petitioners that even as per the charge sheet filed by the police,

Saroornagar, disclose that the alleged amount is pending before the

Andhra Bank and it is an evidence under the Banker's Book Evidence and

the record clearly disclose that no amounts were transferred in favour of

the second petitioner or any other person. There is nothing on record

about the role of the third petitioner in the entire charge sheet.

Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.420 of 2013 on

the file of the Court of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, by way of filing Crl.P.No.8528 of 2015.

7 While the things stood thus, the first petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.482

of 2016 before the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

L.B.Nagar, under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking to discharge from the

proceedings of the said calendar case. The learned trial Court, in its

order dated 24.09.2018, in the above Crl.M.P., observed that the

averments mentioned in the petition are all factual aspects and there is a

strong suspicion about the involvement of the first petitioner in the

alleged crime and hence a detailed trial is required and accordingly

dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved thereby, the first petitioner filed

Crl.R.C.No.266 of 2019.

8 Be that as it may, the learned trial Court issued Order dated

07.4.2019, authorising an attachment by the District Magistrate or

Collector, as per Section 83 Cr.P.C. in Form No.8, stating that the first

petitioner is suspected to have committed the offence of cheating and

misappropriation of property punishable under Section 420 and 406 IPC

and the warrant issued in that connection was returned and that she is

avoiding service of summons / warrant. The learned trial Court further

observed that it was shown to its satisfaction that the petitioner is

concealing herself to avoid the service of the said warrant and thereupon

a proclamation has been or is being duly issued and published requiring

the fist petitioner to appear to answer the charge within thirty days and

that the first petitioner is possessing certain land / property paying

revenue to the Government as set out in the said order. Accordingly

authorised and requested the District Magistrate / Collector to cause the

said land / property to be attached, in the manner specified in Clause (a)

or (c) or both of sub-section (4) of Section 83 and to be held under

attachment pending the further order of the Court. Aggrieved thereby,

the first petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.721 of 2019 seeking to set aside the

order dated 07.4.2019 passed in C.C.No.420 of 2013 on the file of the

Court of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - IV Additional

Junior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

9 As seen from the material available on record, there was an

agreement of settlement dated 28.02.2008 wherein both the first

petitioner and the second respondent agreed to share certain money

among themselves and to share some property to their daughter. The

further allegation of the second respondent is that both parties agree

that their daughter will be in the custody of the first petitioner till she

attains majority. It is also the further allegation of the second

respondent that the first petitioner will pay Rs.23,60,453-00 to the

second respondent towards compensation for holding the flat at

Hyderabad and vacant land admeasuring 2303 sq. yards in Medchal

village and he will relinquish.

10 Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the prima facie opinion that all the cases filed by the

petitioners fail for the reasons that in the discharge petition the learned

trial Court itself observed that there are sufficient grounds to proceed

against the petitioner; the trial Court, in order to secure the presence of

the first petitioner, issued warrant of attachment as she is concealing

herself to avoid the service of the said warrant. Moreover, the specific

allegation of the second respondent was that the first petitioner

defaulted the agreement between the parties. All these matters are

factual which require a thorough investigation as well as trial. So it is not

a fit case to throttle the proceedings at the initial stage. It is only upon a

detailed examination only, the truth will come to light whether the

petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not.

11 Hence and for the reasons stated supra, Criminal Petition No.8528

of 2015 and Crl.R.C.Nos.721 and 266 of 2019 fail and accordingly they

are dismissed.

12 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these

cases shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 09.11.2023 Kvsn