Telangana High Court
Balashanker Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 12 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6324 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/accused to quash the
proceedings against him in C.C.No.3601 of 2021, on the file of learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate Special Mobile Court at Sanga Reddy,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 420, 504,
506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a
complaint stating that accused is the owner and possessor of Plot
No.299 in Sy.No.177 admeasuring 200 Sq.Yards situated at Muthangi
Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District and the accused
offered to sell the said property for total consideration of
Rs.28,00,000/- and respondent No.2 agreed to purchase the said plot.
On 01.04.2021 respondent No.2 sent legal notice demanding
registration of the property. However, the said notice is returned
unserved with an endorsement "unclaimed". On 23.04.2021, accused
along with some other persons has trespassed into respondent No.2
office and threatened him with dire consequences.
3. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the respondent No.1 and Perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent
No.2 failed to perform his part of obligation and thereby to pressurize
the petitioner instituted a false case against the petitioner. He further
submitted that respondent No.2 instituted a specific suit for specific
performance and there are no ingredients to register the criminal case.
In this regard, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Naresh Kumar and another v. The State of Karnataka
and another 1 and prayed the Court to allow the criminal petition by
quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on
record, there is a sale agreement between the parties. According to the
accused, respondent No.2 was not ready to perform his part of
obligation, however, respondent No.2 submitted that he has already
paid some amount and he is always ready to perform his part of
obligation and also filed suit for specific performance. The allegation in
the complaint shows that this petitioner went to the office of
respondent No.2 and threatened him for issuing notice and except this
there are no averments to constitute the offence alleged against
2024 INSC 196
petitioner. Further, in the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand 2, Apex Court held as under:
"While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of the High Court has to be cautious. This power
is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of
preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a
criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also
have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is
given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate
to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court."
7. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Randheer Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh 3, observed as follows:
"Criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as
a weapon of harassment. The disputes is of the civil in
nature and it is relating to breach of contract between the
parties on the agreement of sale. There is no criminal
element and it is the abuse of the process of law.
Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner is liable
to be quashed."
8. The averments of the case on hand would show that the
dispute between the parties is with regard to the land that is in favour
of respondent No.2, and the receipt of part sale consideration, after
execution of agreement of sale. Further, respondent No.2 herein
already filed suit for specific performance of contract. Therefore as
(2013) 11 SCC 673
(2021) 14 SCC 626
observed in the case of Paramjeet Batra and Randheer Singh's case,
in the present case also dispute is purely civil in nature and there is
no criminal element and continuation of proceedings is not required.
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.3601 of 2021 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Special Mobile Court at
Sanga Reddy, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this criminal
petition shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE SMT.K.SUJANA
Date:12 .07.2024
ssm
