Telangana High Court
Mr. K.Venkata Reddy And 3 Others vs State Of Ap., Rep Byits P.P And Anothers on 2 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5445 of 2014
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.4 to
7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings
against them in CC No.1051 of 2013 on the file of the learned VII
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, Cyberabad.
2. Heard Sri Vinayak, learned counsel representing T.Bala
Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vizarath Ali,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public
Prosecutor for the State/respondent No.1. None appeared for
respondent No.2/de-facto complainant.
3. Basing on the private complaint filed by the 2nd
respondent/de-facto complainant, the police of Hayathnagar registered
Crime No.86 of 2013 against the petitioners and others for the offences
under Section 420, 506, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC').
4. The main allegations levelled against the accused are that
the 1st accused representing accused No.2, being its Managing Director
and accused Nos.3 to 5 and one late B.Nageshwar Rao being its
Directors did business in the name and style 'M/s.Lohit Estates Pvt.
Ltd.,' and by stating that they were the owners of land situated in
Sy.Nos.154 and 155 of Koheda Village, Hayathnagar Mandal started
venture viz. 'Kanyaka Colony' at Arunodayanagar wherein the 2nd
respondent purchased plot bearing No.65 by paying admission
fee/advance amount and paid the balance sale consideration in equal
monthly instalments and obtained registered sale deed bearing
document No.5430 of 2003 dated 01.06.2003. They sold large number
of plots to various innocent buyers. Further, when the 2nd respondent,
with a view to construct a compound wall around his plot bearing
No.65, came to his site, he came to know that accused Nos.5 to 10 and
12 removed the boundary stones and when he approached them and
questioned the same, they stated that the plot purchased by the 2nd
respondent was situated in Sy.No.153 but not in Sy.Nos.154 and 155.
Accordingly, when he approached accused Nos.2 to 5 to settle the
issue, they did not heed and dodged the same. The 2nd respondent
further alleged that the accused with a malafide intention to cheat the
innocent buyers, executed two separate General Power of Attorneys i.e.
GPA bearing document No.661 of 1994 dated 13.06.1994 in favour of
accused No.12 and subsequent GPA document bearing No.740 of 1994,
dated 29.05.1994 in favour of accused No.7 in respect of the same land
due to which, two layouts were came into existence. Under these
circumstances, the 2nd respondent, by suspecting collusion among the
accused, lodged the present complaint.
5. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge-
sheet before the Court below putting forth the entire material collected
during the investigation, which has taken cognizance and numbered
the same as CC No.1051 of 2013. During pendency of the above case,
the petitioners filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the
proceedings so far as they relate to them.
6. The grounds urged by the petitioners, in brief, are that due
to some issues they cancelled earlier GPA bearing document No.661 of
1994 and executed another GPA bearing document No.740 of 1994 and
in pursuance of the same accused No.1 sold land covering Sy.Nos.154
and 155, no complaints were received from any corner since 1990, with
the allegation of double registration of lands against M/s.Lohith Estates
Pvt. Ltd., CC Nos.498, 895, 891 and 894 of 2008 were pending before
the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, the
petitioners have not executed any document in respect of the land to
which, they have no title or right, the petitioners have nothing to do
with the allegations levelled in the present case and that the allegations
were made against the accused No.1 company and its directors,
omnibus allegations were made, and that there are no ingredients to
attract the offences with which the petitioners are charge-sheeted.
Thus stating, it is requested to quash the impugned proceedings so far
as they relate to the petitioners.
7. In support of the case of the petitioners, learned counsel
for the petitioners relied upon the following decisions :
(1) Rekha Jain Vs. The State of Karnataka and another 1.
(2) Sarabjit Kaur Vs.State of Punjab and another 2.
(3) Vijay Kumar Ghai and others Vs.State of West Bengal
and others 3,
(4) Vikram Johar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
others 4.
(5) Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and
another 5.
(6) Aitipamula Bhaskar Rao and another Vs. The State of
Telangana and another 6
Basing on the above decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that to attract Sections 120-B, 420 and 506 of IPC, there
must be criminal conspiracy among the accused, dishonest inducement
to deceive the 2nd respondent or any other person to deliver any
property and criminal intimidation but in the present case the said
ingredients are missing. In such scenario, the petitioners are not liable
to be prosecuted for the offences with which they were charge-sheeted.
Criminal Appeal No.749 of 2022 (Hon'ble Supreme Court)
(2023) 5 Supreme Court Cases 360
(2022) 7 Supreme Court Cases 124
Manu/SC/0608/2019
(2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 148
Crl.P.No.5030 of 2022.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that
there is enormous delay in registering the FIR by the police as the
complaint was made on 01.07.2003 and FIR was registered on
08.02.2013 and in such circumstances, the veracity of the allegations
made therein is doubtful.
9. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
vehemently opposed the present criminal petition mainly contending
that grave allegations are levelled against the petitioners and they
require full-fledged trial and that quashing the impugned proceedings
without letting the petitioners to face the trial will not meet the ends of
justice. Thus stating, he requested to dismiss the present criminal
petition.
10. This Court heard the rival contentions of both the parties
and perused the material. No doubt certain allegations, including
double registrations pertaining to same land and element of cheating
several individuals are levelled against the petitioners. In such
circumstances, to know the genuineness or otherwise of the same, it
requires full-fledged enquiry. Quashing the impugned proceedings at
the present stage is nothing but premature and hasty one.
11. It is a settled principle of law that the High Court cannot
conduct "mini trial" while exercising powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court has reiterated settled principles of law as
laid down in a number of judgments, including M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 7
holding that the power of quash should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases and that the Court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability, genuineness or otherwise
of the allegations made in the complaint, the criminal proceedings
ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage, quashing of a
complaint/FIR should be an exception and rarity than an ordinary rule,
ordinarily the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the
police. However, the inherent power of the Court is recognized to
secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process under Section
482 Cr.P.C., and that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious.
It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
12. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, serious allegations
are levelled against the petitioners and others contending that they
lured the 2nd respondent and other innocent buyers to purchase a
(2020) 10 SCC 180
defective titled land and made them to part with their valuable monies.
Truth or otherwise of the same has to be decided by conducting
thorough and full-fledged trial. As stated by learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, without subjecting the contents of the charge-sheet on the
touchstone of the full-fledged trial, the petitioners cannot be cited as
innocents or entitled for quashment. Under these circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to allow the present criminal petition at this stage.
13. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there is a delay in registering the FIR is concerned, it is
an admitted fact that the FIR was registered under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., in pursuance of the directions of the learned VII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hayathnagar, which were given basing on the complaint
lodged by the de-facto complainant under Section 190 of Cr.P.C.,
consequent thereupon, the police concerned, after thorough enquiry,
registered the FIR in due course of time. In such circumstances, the
said contention cannot be countenanced. Having regard to the above
facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dismiss the present
criminal petition.
14. It is needless to mention herein that the petitioners are at
liberty to work out their remedies as available under law. Further, the
appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with
unless and until their presence is required by the Court below.
15. In the result, this criminal petition dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
Dated :02-02-2024
abb
