Telangana High Court
Samreddy Keethi Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 24 November, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6505 OF 2022
ORDER
In this Petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the
proceedings in C.C.2786 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at
L.B.Nagar and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 has filed a
complaint before Balapur Police Station, Rachakonda on 20.02.2019
which is registered as FIR No.70 of 2019 dt.20.02.2019 for the alleged
offences under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in
short, 'IPC'). Petitioner No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.2 and
petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the
land in Survey No.343, admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 gts., situated
at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal. In the year 2018, respondent
No.2/de facto complainant approached the petitioners herein showing
willingness to purchase a part of the land in Survey No.343 and
petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 came to an agreement with
mutually agreed terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions,
respondent No.2 claims to have paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in cash
and another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.000059 dt.10.08.2018
drawn on HDFC Bank Limited as advance towards the sale
consideration. Petitioner No.1, thereafter, executed an Agreement of
Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession vide registered
Document No.15583/2018 dt.18.09.2018 in favour of respondent No.2
to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts., in Survey No.343 situated at Balapur
Village, Saroornagar Mandal. Subsequently, the petitioners received a
letter dt.18.09.2018 from M/s. Pride India Mansions Pvt., Ltd., stating
that the advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- paid to the petitioners was to
be adjusted towards the registration of the agreement vide Document
No.15583/2018. It is submitted that at the request of respondent No.2, in
good faith, petitioner No.1 has received only the cheque amount towards
sale consideration and executed another AGPA vide Document
No.16784/2018, dt.18.10.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 with
respect to Ac.0.10 gts., of land situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar
Mandal and respondent No.2 was yet to pay the full sale consideration
as agreed between the parties. It is submitted that Respondent No.2,
being a real estate developer, had developed a sore eye over petitioner
No.1's property and was trying to take over the petitioners' property
without clearing the payment of the balance sale consideration. It is
submitted that respondent No.2, with a mala fide intention to cause
undue trouble, had approached the Balapur Police Station and filed a
complaint on 20.02.2019 which is registered as FIR No.70 of 2019
against petitioners 1 and 2 for the alleged offences under Sections 420
and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that thereafter, respondent No.2 has also
filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners vide
O.S.No.528 of 2019 on 11.03.2019 on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar which is pending consideration. Another suit,
i.e., O.S.No.2888 of 2019 dt.07.11.2019 has also been filed on the file of
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar which is also pending
consideration. It is submitted that in the plaint filed in O.S.No.2888 of
2019, respondent No.2 has himself accepted that they have to pay the
balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- to the petitioners herein and
therefore, the averments in the complaint regarding Rs.20,00,000/- as
advance payment pending with the petitioners is contrary to record. It is
further submitted that the petitioners were served with notices under
Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'CrPC')
dt.10.04.2019 and the petitioners have submitted the entire set of
documents pertaining to the above transaction to the police. It is further
submitted that the police filed charge sheet in the month of April, 2019
without conducting any enquiry and without application of mind and
pursuant to the charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance of the
same. On the ground that the charge sheet is perverse and constitutes
abuse of process of law, the present petition is filed under Section 482 of
CrPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent
No.2 is using the legal machinery as a tool against the petitioners and
the contents of the complaint did not establish any basis for registering
the case or pursuing the case under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC. He
submitted that in the suit filed by respondent No.2, the balance sale
consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- was to be paid and therefore, the
question of refunding of the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/- received
by the petitioners does not arise. He submitted that the ingredients of
Section 420 of IPC are not present in the present case and even the
provision of Section 506 of IPC is not applicable. In support of his
contention that the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482 of CrPC, has to read in between lines and has a duty to look into the
FIR more closely as the complainant would ensure that the FIR is well
drafted, he placed reliance upon the following two decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1) Mohammad Wajid and others Vs. State of U.P. and others 1
(2) Haji Iqbal alias Bala Vs. State of U.P. and others 2
In support of other contention that the High Court has to be fully
satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that it would
lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound,
reasonable, and indisputable facts and that the material produced is such,
as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused while invoking the inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of CrPC, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs.
Madan Lal Kapoor 3.
4. Sri. S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, however,
opposed the said contentions and submitted that after due investigation
into the allegations made against the petitioners herein, a charge sheet
2023 SCC OnLine SC 951
2023 SCC OnLine SC 946
(2013) 3 SCC 330
has been filed and therefore, a case is clearly made out against the
petitioners.
5. Notices were issued to respondent No.2 through Court process as
well as personal service, however, they could not be served and
therefore, vide order dt.22.02.2023, the petitioners were permitted to
take out substituted service and the petitioners have taken out substituted
service through paper publication. However, in spite of the substituted
service also, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.
Therefore, it shall be considered as deemed service and it is taken that
respondent No.2 is not interested to pursue the Criminal Petition.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the offence under which the crime has been
registered against the petitioners is only under Sections 420 and 506 of
IPC. For the sake of ready reference, the said provisions are reproduced
as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"506. Punishment for Criminal Intimidation.--Whoever
commits the offence of criminal intimation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.--and if the
threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction
of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death
or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be
punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners,
to attract the provisions of Section of 420 of IPC, there has to be
dishonest inducement to deliver any property to any person or to make,
alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security. It is
admitted fact that it is the petitioner No.1 who is the owner of the
property and there was an agreement for sale of the property and the sale
consideration was also agreed to and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- had been
paid as an advance. Admittedly, she has not received the entire sale
consideration and petitioner No.1 has to receive the balance sale
consideration and therefore, there is no case of cheating attracting the
provisions of Section 420 of IPC and the petitioners have not induced
any person, leave alone respondent No.2 to purchase the property at a
particular rate and the ingredients of criminal intimidation are also
absent in this case. The police officials have not brought out any
evidence on record in the charge sheet to demonstrate or prove that the
petitioners have resorted to any intimidating tactics or to cheat
respondent No.2. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioners are applicable to the facts of the case on hand in the
following manner.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai
and others Vs. State of West Bengal and others 4 has observed that
cases purely of civil disputes should not be converted into criminal
cases. It is observed that it is necessary to examine the ingredients of the
offences alleged under Sections 420, 405, 406 and 120-B of IPC to a
particular set of facts.
9. In the case of Mitesh Kumar J Vs. State of Karnataka 5, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Courts, while exercising
the inherent powers should look into the facts of the case and as to
(2022) 7 SCC 124
2021 SCC OnLine SC 976
whether the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are such as a
prudent person can reach to a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. In the case of Manik Taneja
and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another 6, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has reaffirmed the above said position.
10. In view of the above judgments and also the contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the contents of the charge sheet,
this Court finds that the ingredients of Sections 420 and 506 of IPC are
clearly not attracted in the case on hand and therefore, the charge sheet
filed in C.C.No.2786 of 2019 dt. .04.2019 on the file of the learned V
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad
at L.B.Nagar is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
11. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
12. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 24.11.2023
Svv
(2015) 7 SCC 423
