Telangana High Court
Bhavya Constructions Limited And 2 ... vs The State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 22 April, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION No.8013 of 2021
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners to issue a writ of mandamus (i)
to declare the action of respondents 4 and 5 in registering the Crime No.114 of
2021 on the file of PS Ramachandrapuram against the petitioners as violative of
their fundamental rights and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in
Crl.P.No.5474 of 2020 and Crl.P.No.5561 of 2020 dated 12.02.2021 and
18.03.2021 respectively and to quash the same, (ii) the action of respondents 4 and
5 in arresting and remanding the petitioners 2 and 3 is violative of their
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar 1 and to initiate appropriate action against respondents 4 and 5 and
(iii) to declare the action of respondents 2, 4 and 5 in interfering in civil disputes
by aiding and abetting respondents 6 to 9 in filing malicious criminal complaints in
relation to the disputes that have arisen between petitioner No.1 and the respondent
No.7 under agreement of sale dated 27.12.2017 and to direct respondent No.1 to
(2014) 8 SCC 273
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
initiate appropriate action for malicious prosecution and to pass such other order /
orders as this Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case
and in the interest of justice.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Home representing the respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for
the respondents 6 to 9 and the learned counsel for the respondents 11 and 12.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st petitioner was a
company involved in various businesses ranging from construction, development
and allied businesses. The 2nd petitioner was the Director of the 1st petitioner.
The 3rd petitioner was in the business of M/s. Bhavya Cements Limited, which
was part of M/s. Bhavya Group of Companies. During the course of its business,
the 1st petitioner entered into an agreement to purchase Ac.200-00 guntas of land
situated at Dundigal and Bowrampet Villages with M/s. Venkata Praneeth
Developers Private Limited i.e. respondent No.7 on 27.12.2017. Some portion of
the said land was owned by the 1st petitioner. With regard to the remaining
portion, the agreement states that the 1st petitioner was authorized to represent the
land owners. In relation to the said transaction, the respondent No.7 agreed to pay
a total amount of Rs.1,19,00,000/- per acre to the petitioner and the land owners.
The petitioner received various amounts from respondent No.7 and from various
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
individuals on behalf of respondent No.7. About Rs.28.13 crores was paid directly
to the land owners. The 1st petitioner and the other land owners registered
Ac.85.00 guntas of land in favor of respondent No.7 and its nominees. Against the
receipt of the said amounts, various sale deeds were executed by the 1st petitioner
and the land owners in favor of relevant purchasers.
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that while the matter
stood thus, the respondent No.7 caused one Mr. Bogarapu Laxmi Narayana Murthy
to lodge a complaint which resulted in registration of the FIR bearing No.580 of
2020 dated 21.09.2020 against the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner and his
family members and other persons. The allegation in the complaint was that the
complainant was approached by the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner, other
Directors and the other accused to invest in a land purchase. In the said regard, the
complainant paid Rs.25,00,000/- to the 1st petitioner on 02.11.2017 by way of
cheque. It was further alleged that the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner and
other Directors promised to register the land in his favor, but failed to do so or
return the amount. On the said basis, the complaint was registered under Sections
420, 406 and 506 of IPC and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of
Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999. The said complaint was
registered at PS Bachupally by respondent No.5, while he was the Inspector of the
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
Bachupally PS. The registration of the said FIR was an abuse of process of law
and an attempt made by respondent No.7 in collusion with respondent No.5 to
coerce and threaten the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner and other Directors
to settle disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.7 under the term of the
agreement to purchase. The abuse of process of law was accentuated by the fact
that no sooner the FIR was registered on 21.09.2020 at 05:30 PM, the police
authorities consisting of about 15-20 police officers, without any prior notice, came
to the houses of the Managing Director of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners
herein and threatened and coerced them to come to Cyberabad Commissionerate
Office between 06:00 AM to 06:30 AM on 22.09.2020 and detained them in the
said premises for about 14 hours. The abuse of process was also evident from the
fact that on 22.09.2020 at the Cyberabad Commissionerate Office, the Managing
Director of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners herein were made to discuss the
dispute between the 1st petitioner and the respondent No.7 and settle the matter
forthwith on the threat of being remanded to judicial custody. The respondent
No.9, who was one of the Directors in respondent No.7, was present at the
Commissionerate along with respondent No.8, who was also a Managing Director
of respondent No.7. The Managing Director of the 1st petitioner and other
Directors were permitted to leave the premises only after they signed a letter dated
22.09.2020 at around 09:00 PM in the night stating that they would attempt to
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
settle the matter with the aid of well-wishers. The Managing Director of the 1st
petitioner and other Directors were also threatened that many more similar
complaints would be filed against them by various other persons, who paid money
to the petitioner on behalf of respondent No.7. As per the e-mail and the excel
sheet furnished by respondent No.9, the Director of M/s. Venkata Praneeth
Developers Private Limited, an amount of Rs.4,50,00,000/- was paid to the 1st
petitioner on 31.10.2017 through various cheques and one of the cheques was
related to that of the complainant for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that after the
registration of the FIR No.580 of 2020, the petitioners and others filed Criminal
Petition Nos.5474 of 2020 and 5561 of 2020 before this Court with a prayer to
quash all further proceedings in Crime No.580 of 2020 of PS Bachupally,
Cyberabad Commissionerate. This Court vide common order dated 01.06.2021
quashed the proceedings in Crime No.580 of 2020 of PS Bachupally, Cyberabad
Commissionerate against A1 to A4 including the present petitioners herein.
3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on 27.03.2021, at
the behest of respondents 4 and 5, the police officials came to the residence of the
petitioners 2 and 3 and asked them to accompany them to the Cyberabad
Commissionerate Office on the ground that another FIR was registered against
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
them. The petitioners 2 and 3 informed the police that in a similar matter, the
Court had granted stay and therefore it was not permissible for them to register
another crime. But, however, they were forcibly taken to the Commissionerate
Office, Gachibowli and thereafter to PS Ramachandrapuram. At the
Ramachandrapuram Police Station, the petitioners 2 and 3 were informed that
another complaint vide FIR No.114 of 2021 was registered against the petitioners
on 15.02.2021 at the behest of respondent No.6. On a perusal of the FIR, the
petitioners came to know that the contents of the FIR including the wordings were
substantially similar to that in FIR No.580 of 2020 dated 21.09.2020 on the file of
PS Bachupally. The petitioners also came to know that the Inspector, who was
responsible for registering the FIR No.580 of 2020 was transferred from
Bachupally PS to Ramachandrapuram PS and the respondent No.5 in collusion
with respondents 7 to 9 had facilitated filing of FIR No.114 of 2021. Although, an
FIR was registered on 15.02.2021, no notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was
issued to the petitioners and the petitioners were also not informed of the same.
For the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on Ramachandrapuram PS, two words
were included in the FIR that the petitioners and respondent No.6 - complainant
met at "BHEL Gate" and thereafter went to the land at Bachupally. The said words
were included by respondents 4 and 5 in collusion with respondents 7 to 9 to usurp
the jurisdiction, which was otherwise non-existent. Though the respondent No.6 -
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
complainant resided in Kukatpally and the petitioners resided in Jubilee Hills and
the subject land was situated at Bowrampet within the limits of Bachupally PS, on
the basis of the aforementioned FIR, the petitioners 2 and 3 were arrested and were
produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate - cum - Special Court for
Prohibition and Excise Offences, Sangareddy.
3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the action of
respondents 4 and 5 in registering Crime No.114 of 2021 was an abuse of process
of law. It was an attempt to subvert the orders of this Court in Criminal Petition
Nos.5474 of 2020 and 5561 of 2020 passed in relation to Crime No.580 of 2020 on
the file of PS Bachupally in relation to the very same allegations and where stay
was granted. The police did not conduct preliminary investigation into the matter
to verify the statement of respondent No.6 - complainant. The cheques referred by
the respondent No.6 - complainant did not belong to him. In fact, they were
related to one M/s.GRK Constructions. The current transaction and the cheques in
the current FIR were also the subject matter of investigation in FIR No.580 of 2020
and the said investigation was stayed. Therefore, the registration of FIR No.114 of
2021 on 15.02.2021 after all further proceedings had been stayed on 12.02.2021 in
FIR No.580 of 2020 was an abuse of process of law. The registration of FIR
No.114 of 2021 was vitiated by illegalities and lack of jurisdiction, as the
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
respondents 4 and 5 did not have any connection to the said transaction.
Ramachandrapuram PS had no relation to the crime or the transactions. The
respondents 4 and 5 lacked inherent jurisdiction to either register the FIR or initiate
remand proceedings before the Court. Without issuing a notice under Section 41-
A Cr.P.C., the respondent No.5 proceeded to arrest the petitioners 2 and 3 in
violation of the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State
of Bihar (cited supra). His action was actuated by malafides. Even if the contents
of the entire FIR were taken to be true, the allegations would not make out the
offences that were registered against the petitioners. They prima facie constitute a
civil dispute for specific performance of an agreement to sell property or for a suit
for recovery of money. The subject matter of the complaint related to
Rs.2,00,00,000/- paid by the de facto complainant to M/s.Bhavya Constructions
Private Limited in the year 2017. The reading of the FIR would show that the said
allegation related to the one for refund of money and would not constitute a
criminal offence at all. The de facto complainant - respondent No.6 had neither
given any cheque to the petitioners directly nor there was any agreement in favor
of respondent No.2 evidencing any kind of transaction between the petitioners and
the respondent No.2. The FIR was lodged by respondent No.6, who was a total
stranger to the petitioners with whom the petitioners had no transactions of any
kind. The FIR was filed at the behest of respondents 7 to 9 with whom the
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
petitioner No.1 had civil disputes. Thus, the criminal proceedings initiated against
the proceedings were manifestly actuated by malafides with an ulterior motive for
wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. The continuation of the investigation
and subjecting the petitioners to criminal prosecution was an abuse of process of
law.
3.5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent
No.5 had abused his possession as a police official and in collusion with
respondents 7 to 9, was helping them to resolve their civil disputes with petitioner
No.1. The respondent No.7 was the Inspector, who was instrumental in registering
the FIR No.580 of 2020 on the file of PS Bachupally on 21.09.2020. After his
transfer to Ramachandrapuram PS, although, Ramachandrapuram PS did not have
jurisdiction in relation to the current crime, the respondent No.5 by introducing
two words in the FIR to say that the respondent No.6 - complainant met the
petitioners at "BHEL Gate", registered the FIR at PS Ramachandrapuram, which
jurisdiction was otherwise not available. The respondent No.5 was biased in favor
of respondents 7 to 9 and the police machinery was misused by respondent No.5 in
collusion with respondents 7 to 9 to register the false FIR and prayed to allow the
petition.
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
4. Learned counsel for the respondents 6 to 9 submitted that there were prima
facie allegations against the petitioners for the offences for which the case was
registered. The power of quashing could be exercised sparingly only in rarest of
rare cases as per the 3-Judge Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra 2. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The
State of Uttar Pradesh 3 also held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent
powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have to quash the proceedings in criminal
cases with extreme caution only in rarest of rare cases. In Kamal Shivaji
Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra 4 also, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
quashing of criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did
not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. But the
allegations set out in the complaint prima facie would constitute the offences for
which cognizance had been taken and a charge sheet was also filed and numbered,
as such it was not open to the High Court to quash the same and prayed to dismiss
the petition.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that a charge
sheet was filed in the above case and the same was numbered as C.C.No.3571 of
AIR 2021 SC 1918
AIR 2021 SC 931
AIR 2019 SC 847
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class - cum - Special
Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences, Sangareddy, as such the FIR could not
be quashed at this stage and opposed the petition.
6. Perused the record.
7. As seen from the facts of the case in FIR No.114 of 2021 of PS
Ramachandrapuram, the de facto complainant one Jupally Satyanarayana Rao (the
respondent No.6 herein) lodged a report in the Police Station on 15.02.2021 at
18:30 hours stating that in the year 2017, the Directors of M/s. Bhavya
Constructions Private Limited Mr. Anand Prasad, Mr. Aditya Venigalla (the
petitioner No.2 herein) and Mr. Shiva Kumar (the petitioner No.3 herein)
approached him and informed him that they had land in the limits of Bachupally,
Dundigal and Bourampet and that they were in need of money and asked him for
deposit of cash in M/s. Bhavya Projects., so that, they would give half yearly wise
returns. Later, they called him near "BHEL Gate" and took him to Bachupally land
and asked for money. Then, he told them that he would not give in cash. But, he
would transfer the money to their accounts. After few days, Anand Prasad, Aditya
Venigalla, Shiva Kumar, Krishna Kumari Venigalla and Nikhila Venigalla again
came to him and told that they were doing real estate, cement and other businesses.
So, if he would deposit money in their company, they would give 4 % returns.
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
Then, he asked them what was the guarantee for him to deposit the money. Then,
they stated that if they would not pay half yearly wise returns, they would register
the land in his name based on the market value. Believing them, he had made the
payments and gave a cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000/- each vide cheque Nos.424237 and
424238. He gave the said cheques to Anand Prasad, Shiva Kumar and Aditya
Venigalla. The money was deposited to M/s. Bhavya Constructions bank account.
After six months, when he asked them for the returns, they told to wait for a few
more days as Anand Prasad was contesting in elections and after the elections, they
would give him the returns. After the elections were completed, he again asked
them. But they refused to return the money. When he asked them to register the
land on his name, they postponed the matter. In the month of June, when he asked
Anand Prasad, Shiva Kumar and Aditya Venigalla to register the land on his name,
they threatened him stating that they would kill him, if he once again asked
regarding the land and money. Later, he enquired about the company and came to
know that the company had cheated him saying that they would give returns or
register the land on his name and in a similar manner, they had taken money from
100 people up to Rs.100 crores deposit and cheated them also and asked to take
action against the Chairman of M/s. Bhavya Construcitons Private Limited, Anand
Prasad, Aditya Venigalla, Shiva Kumar and the company Directors Krishna
Kumari Venigalla and Nikhila Venigalla.
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
8. Basing on the said report, a case in Crime No.114 of 2021 was registered by
the Ramachandrapuram Police under Sections 420, 406 and 506 read with Section
34 of IPC and Section 5 of Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999.
9. During the course of investigation, Pokala Shiva Kumar (A3) and Aditya
Venigalla (A4) were arrested on 27.03.2021 and a charge sheet was also filed
showing the others as absconding.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the
petitioner No.1 entered into an agreement to purchase with M/s. Venkata Praneeth
Developers Private Limited on 27.12.2017 and certain disputes arose between the
parties in relation to the agreement and M/s. Venkata Praneeth Developers Private
Limited represented by its Directors Mr.K.Narendra Kumar and Mr.Dinesh
Chappidi (respondents 7 and 8 herein) caused filing of Crime No.580 of 2020
dated 21.09.2020 against the petitioners, their family members and others. After
filing of Crime No.580 of 2020, the petitioners filed Criminal Petition Nos.5474
and 5561 of 2020 before this Court. Others also filed some other criminal petitions
and writ petitions challenging the actions of freezing the bank accounts and the
said matters were taken up together. This Court vide common order dated
01.06.2021, allowed the above mentioned criminal petitions and quashed all
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
further proceedings in FIR No.580 of 2020 against the petitioners (A1 to A4 in FIR
No.580 of 2020). The other connected criminal petitions and writ petitions were
also allowed. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Crime No.114 of 2021
was filed by respondent No.6 against the petitioners herein. The petitioners were
arrayed as A2 and A5 in Crime No.114 of 2021. The contents of the complaints in
Crime No.580 of 2020 and Crime No.114 of 2021 were substantially similar. The
disputes between the respondents 6 to 9 and the petitioners were purely civil in
nature. The registration of the FIR and the charge sheet was an abuse of process of
law and vitiated for lack of jurisdiction. Since the registration of the FIR itself was
illegal, the subsequent steps taken by the police including the filing of the charge
sheet dated 30.11.2021 bearing No.3571 of 2021 was also illegal. During the
pendency of the proceedings before this Court in Criminal Petition Nos.5474 of
2020 and 5561 of 2020, it was brought to the notice of this Court that Crime
No.114 of 2021 dated 15.02.2021 was registered. This Court after considering all
the aspects, quashed the proceedings in Crime No.580 of 2020 of PS Bachupally.
The continuation of the proceedings and subjecting the petitioners to criminal
prosecution was an abuse of process of law.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also filed a copy of the common order in
Criminal Petition Nos.5474, 5561, 5611, 5612, 5613, 5628 and 5629 of 2020 and
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
Writ Petition Nos.3481, 3483, 3489 and 3505 of 2021. On a perusal of the said
order, the allegations in Crime No.580 of 2020 made by the de facto complainant
therein were similar to the allegations made by the de facto complainant -
respondent No.6 in the present Crime No.114 of 2021. The Court on considering
all the aspects that there was no written agreement between the de facto
complainant and the company with regard to the deposit, percentage of returns and
in default of payment, registration of land in their favor and that the entire
transactions were oral and except the payment made through cheque, there was no
other piece of evidence produced by the de facto complainant and the alleged
victims to show that it was a deposit and that the petitioners / other accused agreed
to pay half yearly returns at 4% and in the event of their failure, to register the land
in their favor by the petitioners and even the details of the number of victims and
the amount alleged to have collected by the accused also differs from the complaint
and the statement of respondent No.2 and other victims recorded under Section 161
of Cr.P.C. and though it was alleged that there were so many victims and the
accused collected about Rs.100 crore, but no one came before the police by way of
lodging any complaint, disbelieved the version of the complainant therein.
12. The Court also recorded about the complaint lodged by the respondent No.6
herein in the said order stating that on the very same allegations and for the same
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
offences, the respondent No.6 had lodged Crime No.114 of 2021. The Court in the
common order in detail considered the provisions of Sections 420, 406 and 506 of
IPC and the definitions of the words "deposit and financial establishments" as laid
down under Section 2(b), 2(c) and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of
Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and considering the judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Suresh Yadav. v. Sharifa Bee 5, G.Sagar Suri v.
State of Uttar Pradesh 6, Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Limited 7, Hira Lal
Hari Lal Bhagwati v. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi 8, with regard
to the essential ingredients to establish the offences under Sections 415 and 420 of
IPC. Further by considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand 9, The State of Madhya Pradeh v.
Dhruv Gurjar 10 and in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited 11
considered the power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
proceedings. The Court also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi),
(2007) 13 SCC 107
2000 Cri.L.J.824
(2005) 10 SCC 228
2003 Cri.L.J.3041
(2013) 11 SCC 673
(2019) 5 SCC 570
(2006) 6 SCC 736
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
Department of Home 12 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 13 and observed that
when the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the
FIR could be quashed.
13. This Court in the common order also considered the definition of "deposit"
under Section 2(b) of Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999 and observed that the entire complaint or the statements
of the victims recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. would not disclose about
making any deposits for a fixed period and the said provisions under Sections 2(b),
2(c) and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999, dealt with penalty for default and as per the said
provisions, one of the requirements is that there should be an agreement with
regard to payment of interest on the deposit and except oral allegations in the
complaint, the alleged victims had not filed any scrap of paper with regard to the
said agreement and the alleged victims who claimed to be in real estate business
not obtaining any document while making such deposits with a promise to pay 4%
half year returns was absurd and inherently improbable in nature.
(2019) 11 SCC 706
1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
14. The Court also observed in Para No.35 of the common order that:
"35. It is also relevant to note that on the complaint
lodged by Jupally Satyanarayana Rao, who was also
examined by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.
in the above crime, lodged a complaint with police,
Ramachandrapuram, who in turn registered a case
in Crime No.114 of 2021. The learned counsel for
the petitioners would submit that on the same
allegations with regard to the very same issue, there
cannot be multiple FIRs. According to him, the
accused therein have also filed a criminal petition
and this Court granted stay."
36. As stated above, though there is abnormal delay
in lodging the complaint, the police have registered
the case on 21.09.2020 itself. They have also gone
to the house of petitioners on the next day morning
at 6.00 A.M. itself. They have also freezed the
accounts of petitioners on 22.09.2020. They have
also registered another crime vide FIR No.114 of
2021. Learned counsel for the petitioners would
submit that Mr. P. Jagadeshwar, Inspector of Police,
has registered Crime No.580 of 2020 when he was
Station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station
and on his transfer to Ramachandrapuram Police
Station, he has registered Crime No.114 of 2021 as
Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police
Station in active connivance with the said VPDPL
and Jupally Satyanarayana Rao. A perusal of FIR
No.580 of 2020 of Bachupally Police Station and
FIR No.114 of 2021 of Ramachandrapuram Police
Station reveals the said fact. Both the said crimes
were registered by the same person as Station
House Officer. Accordingly, the said P.
Jagadeeshwar, Station House Officer,
Ramachandrapuram Police Station, are calling the
petitioners and harassing them under the guise of
investigation. He has arrested accused No.2 in the
said crime illegally. Thus, the said facts would
reveal the mala fide intention of respondent No.2 in
converting the civil disputes into criminal
proceedings. It is relevant to note that respondent
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
No.2 did not make any allegation against VPDPL.
Thus, it is a case which falls under one of the
categories laid down by the Apex Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (cited supra) for quashing
the FIR since the allegations are 'absurd' and
'inherently improbable' in nature.
15. As the contents of the present complaint would disclose that they relate to a
civil dispute between the petitioners and the respondents 7 to 9 and they have used
the respondent No.6 to lodge the complaint against the petitioners without there
being any agreement with him and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners
were actuated by malafides only with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance
against the petitioners herein and the FIR on the face of it would not disclose that
the respondent No.6 had made any demand for refund of the amount and the
ingredients of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC were
conspicuously absent. The inclusion of Section 3 of the Telangana State Protection
of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 was an abuse of power, as
Sections 3 and 5 of the Depositors Act, 1999 apply to deposits taken by Financial
Establishments as defined under the said Act and as seen from the contents of the
complaint, the amount allegedly paid by respondent No.6 was an advance
consideration for the purchase of land / investment which does not constitute a
deposit and the respondent No.6 had not entrusted any property to the petitioners
with any particular direction, in which it has to be discharged or that the petitioners
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
had converted any such property to their own use to attract the offence under
Section 406 of IPC and the FIR was bereft of any particulars to attract an offence
under Section 506 of IPC. The date, time or place where the respondent No.6 was
allegedly subjected to intimidation was not mentioned in the FIR. The
continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is considered as an abuse of
process of law.
16. With regard to the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Home that as charge sheet was filed, as such the FIR cannot be quashed at this
stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh 14, wherein it was
held that:
"11. This being the factual backdrop, we may note
at the very outset that the contention that the
appellants' quash petition against the FIR was liable
to be dismissed, in any event, as the charge sheet in
relation thereto was submitted before the Court and
taken on file, needs mention only to be rejected. It
is well settled that the High Court would continue to
have the power to entertain and act upon a petition
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR
even when a charge sheet is filed by the police
during the pendency of such petition [See Joseph
Selvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 7 SCC
59]]. This principle was reiterated in Anand
Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi),
Department of Home [(2019) 11 SCC 706]. This
2023 SCC Online SC 1083
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
issue, therefore, needs no further elucidation on our
part."
17. Thus, even after a charge sheet was filed, the FIR can be quashed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. As such, this Court does not find any merit in the
contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on this aspect.
18. As the facts of the case also would disclose that the respondent No.5 was the
Inspector of Police, who was instrumental in registering the FIR No.580 of 2020
on the file of PS Bachupally against the petitioners on 21.09.2020 and after his
transfer to Ramachandrapuram PS, though he was not having any jurisdiction, by
introducing two words in the FIR to say that the respondent No.6 - complainant
met the petitioners at "BHEL Gate" registered the case at PS Ramachandrapuram
without jurisdiction, arrested and produced them before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate cum Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences and filed the
charge sheet, the same is considered as an abuse of process of law. Further,
registering the case under Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of
Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 is also considered as only to
obliviate the issuance of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Interfering in civil
disputes by aiding and abetting the respondents 6 to 9 and filing malicious criminal
complaints in relation to the disputes that arose between the 1st petitioner and the
respondent No.7 under the agreement of sale dated 27.12.2007 is also considered
Dr.GRR, J
wp_8013_2021
as an abuse of his power and position. As such, the Director General of Police is
directed to take action against the respondent No.5.
19. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Director General of Police
for taking necessary action against respondent No.5.
20. In the result, the proceedings in Crime No.114 of 2021 on the file of the PS
Ramachandrapuram registered as C.C.No.3571 of 2021 before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate of First Class - cum - Special Court for Prohibition and Excise
Offences is quashed and the Director General of Police is directed to take action
against the respondent No.5 for interfering in civil disputes by aiding and abetting
the respondents 6 to 9 in filing malicious criminal complaint in relation to the
disputes that arose between the 1st petitioner and the respondent No.7 under the
agreement of sale dated 27.12.2007.
21. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any shall
stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 22nd April, 2024
Nsk.
