Telangana High Court

Sheila Vijay Shewakaramani, Mumbai., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp And Anr., on 24 November, 2023

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
    CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.14479, 14591 & 16564 of 2014

COMMON ORDER :

These three Criminal Petitions are filed by the petitioners /

accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for

short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the proceedings against them in

C.C.No.636 of 2014 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First

Class Magistrate at Sangareddy.

2. Heard Sri RN Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel representing on behalf of Sri Avadesh Narayana Singhi,

learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Challa Gunaranjan, learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State

/ 1st respondent.

3. Since the point involved in all these criminal petitions is

one and the same and since all the petitioners herein are arrayed as

accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively in the same calendar case, all these

criminal petitions are disposed of by way of this common order.

4. The main accusation against the petitioners, as per the

contents of charge-sheet in C.C.No.636 of 2014, briefly, is that by

misrepresenting before the second respondent herein posing that by

virtue of decree dated 31.12.1992 in OS No.47 of 1982 on the file of

Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy they are the owners of land

admeasuring Ac.110.00 in Sy.Nos.812, 814, 816 to 824, 830, 833, 837

and 838 situated at Patancheru Industrial Area, Phase II, Medak

District on behalf of their company M/s.Lite Crete Construction

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and offered to sell away Ac.85.00 out of the total

land admeasuring Ac.110.00 to the de-facto complainant/2nd

respondent and others for a total sale consideration of

Rs.11,01,00,000/- and demanded them to pay Rs.1,20,00,000/- as

advance sale consideration at the time of agreement of sale dated

08.03.2007, entered into between M/s.Lite Crete Construction

Industries Pvt. Ltd., on one side and Smt.P.Manjula, A.Srinivasa Rao

and the 2nd respondent on the other side. As per the said agreement of

sale, the balance sale consideration was rounded off to Rs.99,00,000/-

and to be paid within two months. They further stated that the appeal

preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.47 of 1982 by the

defendant/Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation

Limited (APIIC) i.e. A.S.No.987 of 1993, before the erstwhile High Court

for the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, was dismissed for non-

prosecution. Further, AS No.987 of 1993 was got restored by APIIC.

Due to the delay occurred in registering the land, as agreed, the

partners of 2nd respondent retired from the partnership and hence, he

became scapegoat by paying Rs.20,00,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/-,

Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- through bank transactions into the

account of accused No.1/petitioner in Crl.P.No.16564 of 2014. The

subject land was originally allotted to M/s.Lakshmi Clay Structurals

Limited, to which accused No.1 and one A.K.Sagar were the Directors

holding equal shares and subsequently, the said company was taken

over by M/s.Lite Crete Constructions Pvt. Ltd., in an auction

conducted by APIIC. Further, as per orders in IA No.630 of 1992 in

OS No.47 of 1982 one of the shareholders of Lakshmi Clay Structurals

Ltd., i.e. AK Sagar got himself impleaded as plaintiff in the place of

Lakshmi Clay Structurals Ltd., in OS No.47 of 1982, a suit filed by the

earlier company-Lakshmi Clay Structurals against APIIC for specific

performance of agreement of sale pertaining to the land admeasuring

Ac.85.00, out of Ac.110.00.

5. It is the allegation of the 2nd respondent that after demise

of AK Sagar, who is one of the shareholders along with accused No.1,

ignoring the legal heirs of late AK Sagar and by playing fraud, the

accused No.1 got his wife and son, who are the accused Nos.2 and 3,

into the record as share holders and directors of the company. When

the 2nd respondent approached accused Nos.1 to 3 to register the

subject land and settle the matter, they dragged the matter. Having

vexed with such attitude of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent entered

into a separate agreement for valid consideration with the legal heirs of

late AK Sagar and accordingly, they assigned all their rights to initiate

legal action on their behalf in respect of the properties of the subject

land. When the said fact came to light, the accused threatened the

2nd respondent with dire consequences and are trying to sell away the

property to third parties such as accused Nos.4 and 5, who are not

arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet. Accordingly, FIR No.108 of

2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of

Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') was registered against the

petitioners and others and after completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet was laid vide C.C.No.636 of 2014 on the file of the Court below

arraying the petitioners herein as accused Nos.1 to 3.

6. The petitioners, who are the accused Nos.1 to 3, filed the

present criminal petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings

against them in C.C.No.636 of 2014 on the file of the Court below

mainly contending that there are no ingredients or evidence much less

corroborating evidence available on record to rope-in the petitioners in

the array of accused in the subject matter case, there is no fabricated

document found in the record allegedly stated to be shown to the 2nd

respondent by the accused to prove that they are the title holders of

the subject land and that late A.K.Sagar, during his lifetime sold away

10 shares to accused No.3, who purchased the same on behalf of the

company and that M/s.Lite Crete Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd., is

the owner of the property and that late AK Sagar was never the owner

of the said company, the quantum and mode of payment was not

mentioned by the investigating officer in the charge-sheet, accused

No.3 is a non-functional Director and that the alleged agreement was

executed prior to assumption of charge by accused No.2 as Director on

24.03.2011 and hence, accused Nos.2 and 3 cannot be held liable and

that the statement of Aruna Sagar (LW4) that she inherited the

property from late A.K.Sagar is not correct. Further, Clause 'J' of the

agreement shows that late AK Sagar purchased the land for the

company and not for his personal use. The petitioners with the aid of

documents submitted by LW4 and the 2nd respondent could able to

demonstrate that the allegations levelled against them are frivolous

and against the record. The present case is filed to validate the

frustrated and time barred contract and nothing but abuse of process

of Court. Vexatious cases should be snubbed at the threshold. Thus

stating, it is requested to allow all these criminal petitions quashing

the impugned proceedings against the petitioners.

7. In support of their contentions learned counsel for the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.14479 of 2014 relied upon the ratio laid down in

the following decisions :

(i) Mahmood Ali and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 1.

(ii) Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2.

(iii) Madhavi Vuppalapati and another Vs. Sojitz Corporation The State of AP and others .

(iv) Sharadchandra Shripad Marathe Vs. Gurushant Gangadhar Kamble and others 4.

(v) M.A.A. Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and another 5.

(vi) Sushil Sethi and another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others 6.

(vii) Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane 7.

8. On the other hand, while strongly opposing these criminal

petitions, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon the

principles laid down in the following decisions contending that

criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the sole reason that the

case arising out of the dispute is civil in nature, criminal proceedings

can persist against a civil dispute regarding breach of contract when

there are clear allegations of cheating and fraud madeout and that the

High Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

cannot go into the matter or examine its correctness.

2023 SCC OnLine SC 950

2021 SCC OnLine SC 976

(2021) 0 Supreme (Telangana) 92

1986 SCC OnLine Bom 192

(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 524

(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 240

(2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 781

(i) Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 8.

(ii) Priti Sharaf and another Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another 9.

(iii) V.Ravi Kumar Vs. State and others 10.

(iv) Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and another 11.

9. This Court perused the entire material available on record including the

principles laid down by the above referred decisions, relied upon by learned counsel

on either side. The main grievance of the 2nd respondent against the petitioners is that

the 1st accused, by misrepresenting that they were allotted land by APIIC, entered into

agreement of sale with the 2nd respondent and others agreeing to sell away Ac.85.00 of

land, the ownership of which is the subject matter of a civil suit and subsequent appeal

suit pending adjudication before this Court and obtained substantial amounts. It is

pertinent to note that there is a cloud around the subject land of Ac.85.00 since, the

same is the subject matter of a civil litigation and pending before the High Court.

Evidence on record, especially that of LW4 shows that there is a dispute regarding

ownership of the title. So far as the criminal proceedings initiated against the

petitioners under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC is concerned, the allegations levelled

against the petitioners are that they, without having valid title, entitlement or allotment

and pending adjudication of declaration of title, have entered into agreement of sale

and obtained huge sums towards advance sale consideration. Further, the subject land

is stated to be allotted by the APIIC, which is a Government organization, established

(2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 35

2021 SCC OnLine SC 206

Manu/SC/1480/2018

(2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 439

to safeguard the interests of the public regarding public properties and exchequer.

Furthermore, the ownership of the subject land admeasuring Ac.85.00 is yet to be

decided in a pending appeal suit filed by APIIC. Undoubtedly there are two

agreements of sale regarding the same property.

10. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 12, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while interpreting various relevant provisions of

Cr.P.C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated in a

series of decisions relating to exercise of inherent powers under section

482 Cr.P.C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration

wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the

process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The

broad guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard are:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support

1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. When the facts of the case on hand are tested with the

guidelines enunciated supra, there is nothing on record to hold that

the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are maliciously

instituted with ulterior motives. On the other hand, there is ample

material available on record in the form of charge-sheet and

statements of witnesses as well as documents collected during the

course of investigation. The relevancy and truth or otherwise of the

same has to be decided on the touchstone of the full-fledged trial. In

that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that

without conducting full-fledged trial, quashing the proceedings against

the petitioners will not meet the ends of justice and it is a premature

stage to come to a hasty conclusion in this regard. Accordingly, this