Telangana High Court

Vikash Kumar Keshan vs The State Of Telangana on 8 February, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.10824 of 2018

ORDER:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners in FIR No.792 of 2018 dated

20.09.2018 on the file of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad

for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 506, 120-b of IPC.

2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents lodged a written complaint

with the Madhapur Police Station on 19.09.2018 stating that

they entered into an agreement of sale with respect to three

share holders in an extent of Acs.69.10 guntas. In all, there

were 104 shares in the said property and civil suits for for

partition were before the Civil Court. The three share holders

will get an extent of Acs.22.13 guntas and accordingly the said

shareholders namely Masood Ali Khan, Hasan Ali Khan and

Smt.Sharifunnisa Begum have assigned their shares on

01.10.1998 by taking the entire consideration amount from

the complainants. Final decree was passed on 07.07.2005 in

the pending suit and the appeal against the said decree was

dismissed by the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court. In the

year 2007, appeal was preferred in the High Court and the

High Court reversed the judgment of the lower Court in the

year 2010. Aggrieved by the same, appeal was filed in the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside

the judgment of the High Court on 21.03.2017 and confirmed

the trial Court's final decree dated 07.07.2005.

3. Both the complainants were approached by the 2nd

petitioner and promised to represent in the Supreme Court

proceedings when they were pending. Even prior to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the month of

August, 2016, the shares of the complainants were given for

development to the 2nd petitioner/Rajinder Sharma. After the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, A2 asked all the

assignees of the land to enter into development agreement

with Maha Keshan Developer Private Limited and accordingly,

there was an agreement of sale without possession, which was

entered on 21.07.2016. Smt. Anees Makhandar, one of the

legal heirs wanted extra payment for her share. An agreement

was made with the 2nd petitioner for payment of extra money

to her by giving 5000 sq.yds, which belongs to the

complainant/Y.Anthi Reddy and Sridhar Reddy at the rate of

Rs.30,000/- per sq.yard in November, 2016. The 2nd petitioner

paid Rs.1,50,00,000/- and the balance was not paid. Though

the complainants were insisting that the petitioners develop

the lands as promised, no development was done by 2nd

petitioner. He was passing time and did not take any steps to

develop the land. In the back ground of the 2nd petitioner not

developing the property all the assignees cancelled the

development agreement and one of the assignees V.Madana

Mohan Rao cancelled the development agreement by refunding

the advance paid by Rajinder Sharma/2nd petitioner and

A1/Vikash Kumar Keshan.

4. Thereafter, five of the assignees in respect of Acs.3.35

guntas gave power of attorney to A1/1st petitioner and two of

them entered into deed of ratification in favour of Mahalaxmi

Properties and Developer (Private) Limited represented by A2

for 5000 sq.yds vide document No.9351/2016, dated

21.07.2016. For the said reason of the legal heirs of

Sharifunnisa and Hasan Ali having no right in the properties,

entered into agreement with the petitioners, having knowledge

that the complainants have interest in the properties,

complainants alleged that they have been cheated. The act of

the petitioners in entering into agreements with persons

having no right in the property, amounts to cheating. On the

basis of the said complaint, crime was registered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the disputes inter-se the parties are purely civil

in nature and criminal complaint is deliberately made to settle

such civil disputes. Both the complainants themselves have

executed several documents in favour of the petitioners in

respect of the land and the disputes, if any, can only be

agitated before the civil Court. The police have no business to

the interference of the police in the name of investigation is

wholly unwarranted. This Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C

may quash the First Information Report.

6. On the other hand, Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents would submit that proceedings

in crime can be quashed only under exceptional

circumstances. The petitioners having knowledge that the

complainants were persons having rights over the property,

have entered into agreement with the other persons having no

rights in the property, which was deliberately done to cheat

the complainants. Since prima facie case of cheating is made

out, investigation has to go on.

7. As seen from the narration of the complaint,

complainants had entered into agreement with the assignees

who were parties to the partition suit. In respect of the

property, sharers were 104. The male children were allotted

14/104 shares, wives 13/104 shares and female children

7/104 shares, which was confirmed in appeal by the High

Court in 1976. Subsequently, in the year 1990, the Advocate

Commissioner was appointed by the Court for partition of the

lands and the Advocate Commissioner divided the lands and

submitted report in 1993. On 25.12.1993, the complainants

have entered into agreement of sale with three shareholders.

All the said aspects were subject matters of civil disputes

before the civil Court. The main grievance of the complainants

is that five of the shareholders, now having no share had

transacted with these petitioners in respect of the subject land

to cheat them, though rights over the property were with the

complainants. Even assuming that earlier the said lands were

subject matters of transactions in between the shareholders

and the complainants and subsequently, shareholders have

entered into any kind of transactions in respect of the very

same lands with the petitioners herein, it cannot be said that

the petitioners have in any manner cheated the complainants.

8. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, a person

should have made false representations pursuant to which, a

person must have been induced believing the said

representation. The person induced should have delivered

property resulting in wrongful loss to him.

9. The disputes in respect of the lands were pending prior to

1970. Thereafter, the complainants have entered into

transactions with the shareholders during pendency of

disputes in Civil Courts. In turn, complainants have entered

into transactions with these petitioners even prior to the

disputes attained any finality. Due to disputes in between the

complainants and the petitioners, the petitioners entered into

transactions with the shareholders. In such circumstances,

when all the transactions inter-se the shareholders and the

persons entering into either for development of land or general

power of attorney etc, in respect of the subject land, it cannot

be said that these petitioners having initially entered into an

agreement with the complainants and thereafter with the

shareholders, though in respect of the very same property, will

not amount to an offence of cheating. The transactions are

purely civil in nature and it can only be agitated before the

civil Court. The registration of crime is nothing but abuse of

process of criminal investigation. It is apparent that, to settle

civil disputes, criminal complaint is filed.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others (1992 AIR 604), had

enunciated the principles for use of the extraordinary power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein it is held as

follows:

(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;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

11. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners in

FIR No.792 of 2018 dated 20.09.2018 on the file of Madhapur

Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.

12. Criminal Petition is allowed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 08.02.2024 kvs