Telangana High Court
B.Ashok vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 12 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12462 OF 2015
ORDER:
1 This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner / accused No.1 in Cr.No.408 of
2015 on the file of SHO, P.S Patancheru, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
2 The facts in brief are that the second respondent herein lodged a
complaint under Sections 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. on the file of the Court of the
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, against the petitioners
for the offences stated supra. The allegation was that he entered into an
agreement of sale with accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of various extents of
land in difference survey numbers, situated at Patancheru (V&M), Medak
District by paying an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs by way of advance sale
consideration to the accused persons and the accused have handed over the
physical possession of the land to the second respondent and that the
balance of sale consideration was agreed to be paid within six months.
Though the second respondent demanded the accused persons to register
the sale deed by taking balance sale consideration in pursuance of the
agreement of sale dated 27.10.2010, the accused persons, for the reasons
best known to them, have postponed the same on one pretext or the other,
but they demanded additional amount for which the second respondent
refused. Be that as it may, the accused Nos.1 and 2 along with their mother
by name Sakunthala and others have executed registered sale deed on
13.4.2015 in favour of accused Nos.3 and 4. The accused Nos.3 and 4 have
also knowledge about the existence of agreement of sale between the
second respondent and the accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the fact that the
second respondent was in physical possession of the land by virtue of the
agreement of sale. Hence the complaint. The trial Court forwarded the
same to the SHO, Patancheru police station, where it was registered as a
case in Cr.No.408 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 468,
471 and 420 IPC. As stated supra, seeking to quash the said proceedings,
the first accused in the case filed the present criminal petition.
3 Sri J.C.Francis. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the subject matter of the present criminal petition is purely civil in nature
and the civil law alone would have to be put in motion for appropriate
remedy and therefore initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse
of process of law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on a judgment of the erstwhile High Court for the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Varalakshmi Vs. The State of Telangana
(Crl.P.Nos.3158 and 7521 of 2018) dated 10.12.2018, wherein the High
Court held that as follows:
"..........what all paid is only 6 lakhs out of Rs.30,10,000/- the filing of the
complaint about 12 years later on 24.01.2018 is hopelessly a speculative and
vexatious litigation with lack of bona fides of the time barred civil
unenforceable dispute of the nonpossessory contract for sale to add a criminal
flavour if possible. Further there was no any exchange of even notices if at all
to enforce the agreement for sale having kept quiet from 2005 without asking
for specific performance that too not even filing of suit for specific
performance, the attribution of cheating and mischief and criminal intimidation
are baseless........."
4 On the other hand, Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submitted that whether the petitioners have cheated the
complainant or not will come to light only after a full fledged trial and hence
this is a premature stage to throttle the proceedings.
5 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
APP, this Court is inclined to go into the provisions of law with which the
petitioner was charged i.e. Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
6 Section 468 IPC defines that whoever commits forgery, intending that
the document or electronic record forged, shall be used for the purpose of
cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
7 As seen from the record, there is no averment in the complaint that
the petitioner or the other accused have in any way forged any document.
Hence this provision of law does not attract.
8 Section 471 defines that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as
genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to
believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in
the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
9 As seen from the record there is no averment in the complaint that
the petitioner or the other accused have any used any document which they
have reason to believe that the same is a forged one and used it as a
genuine one. Hence this provision of law does not attract.
10 The ultimate charge levelled against the petitioner and the other
accused was the offence under Section 420 IPC, which defines that
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.
11 In the instant case, the petitioners and the second respondent
entered into an agreement of sale on 27.10.2010 for certain extent of land
in different survey numbers of Patancheru (V) & (M) and that the second
respondent also paid an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs by way of advance sale
consideration to the accused persons and the accused have handed over the
physical possession of the land to the second respondent and that the
balance of sale consideration was agreed to be paid within six months. The
main allegation was that the accused Nos.1 and 2 without registering the
land in favour of the second respondent, have alienated the same in favour
of accused Nos.3 and 4.
12 Therefore, whether the petitioner and the other accused have cheated
the second respondent or not will have to be ascertained only during the
course of trial. Hence meddling with the proceedings at this stage, in my
considered view, is not warranted.
13 Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed in part, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner in so far as the offences under Sections
468 and 471 IPC are concerned. However, the prayer to quash the offence
under Section 420 IPC is hereby dismissed.
14 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall
also stand dismissed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 12.01.2024
Kvsn
