Telangana High Court

Lamba Anand vs M.Ramesh Kumar Yadav on 26 September, 2023

Bench: K.Surender

       HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                   AT HYDERABAD

                               *****
               Criminal Petition No.1827 OF 2021

Between:

Lamba Anand& 3 others                             ... Petitioners/A2 to A5

                                     And

1. M. Ramesh Yadav                       ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant

2. The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.                                           ...Respondent

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :              26.09.2023

Submitted for approval.



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

   1 Whether Reporters of Local
     newspapers may be allowed to see the                     Yes/No
     Judgments?

   2 Whether the copies of judgment may
     be marked to Law Reporters/Journals                      Yes/No

   3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
     Wish to see their fair copy of the                       Yes/No
     Judgment?




                                                     __________________
                                                      K.SURENDER, J
                                     2




         * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER

                     + CRL.P. No. 1827 of 2021



 % Dated 26.09.2023

# Lamba Anand & 3 others                        ... Petitioners/A2 to 5

                                  And

$ 1.M. Ramesh Kumar Yadav                ...Respondent/Defacto complainant

  2.The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.                                      ... Respondent




! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy

^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Padala Pravin Kumar
                                        &
                                  Public Prosecutor



>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

1 (2023) 5 Supreme Court Cases 360

2(2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 148
3.(2012) 10 SCC 303
4.(2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 124
5.(2000) 4 SCC 168
                                   3


         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.1827 OF 2021

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A2

to A5, to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.4723/2020

on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-IV Additional Civil

Junior Judge at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad. The offences alleged against

them are under Sections 120(b), 383, 406, 420 and 506 r/w.34 of

the Indian Penal code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

3. The 1st respondent filed complaint stating that he is the

Managing Director of M/s.RRK Property Assets Private limited and

also Managing Director of SAANWI Housing Private Limited; and

that Accused No.1 was working as a Liasoning Assistant Officer. A1

took these petitioners who are A2 to A5 to the office and introduced

them as owners of the land and they were ready to give the land for

development. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 5 and others who are

joint family members of the Lamba family entered into an

agreement-cum-Memorandum of understanding. In all, six

Memorandum of Understandings were entered into in respect of the

land admeasuring Ac.9.18 guntas. These petitioners, A1 and other

Lamba family members received an amount of Rs.1,26,63,110/-

approximately from the complainant company. A6 who is a reporter

also assured that he would get certain permissions in the subject

property and also received Rs.60,000/-. All the accused dragged on

the matter stating that they applied for conversion and HMDA

permission. However, A1 quit his job from the complainant

company.

4. Further, it is the case that in violation of the Memorandum of

Understanding, the petitioners started marketing the land by

making a venture in the subject land and selling the plots. These

petitioners A2 to A5 allegedly threatened the complainant and

others, when questioned regarding the amount. The other family

members were ready to execute the sale deeds, but, these

petitioners, A1 and A6 were coming in the way of executing the sale

deeds.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, Police filed charge sheet

against A1, these petitioners who are A2 to A5 and also A6.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit

that in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.10.2016, it

was specifically mentioned that the possession of the scheduled

property was handed over and the complainant has a right to

appoint architects, surveyors, engineers, contractors etc. Thereafter,

a legal notice was addressed by the 4th petitioner/A5 to RRK

Property Assets Private Limited i.e. to the 1st respondent to come

forward for registration of the land by paying the remaining sale

consideration of Rs.54,22,215/-. Another Legal Notice was also

issued by the 2nd petitioner/A3 to pay the remaining amount of the

consideration.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that an

Arbitration Notice in accordance with MOU was given, however, the

arbitration proceedings were not taken up since the complainant

was not inclined towards arbitration proceedings, though agreed in

the MOU.

8. He relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in

Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another 2 wherein at para-

13 it was held as follows;

"13. A breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. From the facts available on record,

(2023) 5 Supreme Court Cases 360

it is evident that Respondent 2 had improved his case ever since the first complaint was filed in which there were no allegations against the appellant rather it was only against the property dealers which was in subsequent complaints that the name of the appellant was mentioned. On the first complaint, the only request was for return of the amount paid by Respondent 2. When the offence was made out on the basis of the first complaint, the second complaint was filed with improved version making allegations against the appellant as well which was not there in the earlier complaint. The entire idea seems to be to convert a civil dispute into criminal and put pressure on the appellant for return of the amount allegedly paid. The criminal courts are not meant to be used for settling scores or pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. Wherever ingredients of criminal offences are made out, criminal courts have to take cognizance. The complaint in question on the basis of which FIR was registered was filed nearly three years after the last date fixed for registration of the sale deed. Allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the Court."

9. He also relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court

in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat and

another 3 wherein at para-14 it was held as follows;

"14. Moreover, this Court in a number of cases has usually cautioned against criminalizing civil disputes, such as breach of contractual obligations (refer to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 4). The legislature intended to criminalise only those breaches which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive

(2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 148

(2012) 10 SCC 303

inducements, which resulted in involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 IPC."

10. He further relied on the Judgment rendered by the

Honourable Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Ghai and others v.

State of West Bengal and others 5 wherein at paras-38 and 40 it

was held as follows;

"38. There can be no doubt that a mere breach of contract is not in itself a criminal offence and gives rise to the civil liability of damages. However, as held by this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar 6, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating, which is criminal offences, is a fine one. While breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention is the basis of the offence of cheating. In the case at hand, complaint filed by Respondent 2 does not disclose dishonest or fraudulent intention of the appellants.

40. Having gone through the complaint/FIR and even the charge- sheet, it cannot be said that the averments in the FIR and the allegations in the complaint against the appellant constitute an offence under Sections 405 and 420 IPC, 1860. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the appellants had any mala fide intention against the respondent which is

(2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 124

(2000) 4 SCC 168

clearly deductible from the MoU dated 20.08.2009 arrived at between the parties."

11. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that

an amount of Rs.1.16 crores was admittedly taken. However, they

entered into an agreement of sale subsequently with A1. For the

said reason, petition has to be dismissed.

12. The transactions are not disputed by the petitioners. It cannot

be said from the admitted documents which are the MoU and the

correspondence between the parties that there was any intention of

the petitioners, from the inception to deceive the complainant. The

petitioners herein were only made as accused, though others were

also parties to the MOU. The dispute in question is a civil dispute

which can be agitated by the parties having recourse to the Civil

Court.