Telangana High Court

Mandadi Laxma Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 July, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.5311 of 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash

the proceedings against them in CC.No.882 of 2021 on the

file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rangareddy District, at Hayathnagar, for the alleged

offence punishable under Sections 415, 420, 503, 406,

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for

short 'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2020

the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a

complaint before the Vanasthalipuram Police Station,

stating that one person namely M.Laxma Reddy/petitioner

No.1/accused No.1 represented that he is the owner and

possessor of the plot bearing No.27, admeasuring 240

square yards in Survey No.245 of Injapur Village,

Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District, and that he

offered to sell the said plot to respondent No.2, as such, on

SKS,J

5.12.2017 the petitioner No.1 entered into an Agreement of

Sale with respondent No.2 to sell the said plot for a total

sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- and on the same day

the respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards

advance cum part sale consideration. Thereafter, upon

execution of agreement, the petitioner No.1 informed that

the plot registration is on the name of his wife (petitioner

No.2/accused No.2) and promised to get executed the sale

deed through his wife. Later, when the respondent No.2

approached petitioner No.1 and requested him to execute

the sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of

Rs.1,00,000/- the petitioner No.1 refused to do the same

and gave evasive reply and with an intention to extract

more amounts, he stated that the plot is in the name of his

wife and she has not executed any agreement/receipt, as

such, the receipt executed by him is invalid. It was alleged

that the petitioner NOs.1 and 2 threatened respondent

No.2 that if he fails to pay more amounts, they will alienate

the said plot in favour of third parties at higher prices.

3. With regard to the above dispute, the respondent

No.2 filed O.S.No.526 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional

Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, whereunder, the

SKS,J

petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein denied the execution of

agreement of sale and stated that the Agreement shown by

respondent No.2 is invalid.

4. On receipt of said complaint, the Police

investigated the matter and on completion of investigation,

the Police filed charge sheet, wherein, the petitioner Nos.1

and 2 were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 for offence

punishable under Sections 415, 420, 503 and 406, read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri Shaik Madar, learned counsel for

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, Sri S.Ganesh, learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent

No.1 - State, and Sri V.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.2/de facto complainant.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

dispute between the parties is of civil nature and with

regard to the same, O.S.No.526 of 2018 was filed and the

same is pending before the Civil Court. He contended that

pending disposal of the said O.S., the respondent No.2

SKS,J

resorted to file a false complaint against the petitioners and

the same shows his malafide intention to harass the

petitioners. He asserted that the allegations leveled against

the petitioners in the FIR and the charge sheet are

baseless, vague and without any material evidence, and

the same amounts to abuse of process of law.

7. In support of the said contentions, the learned

counsel for petitioners relied on the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Usha Chakraborty and

Another Vs. State of Bengal and Another 1, R.Nagender

Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and Another 2, and Mitesh

Kumar J.Shah Vs. State of Karnataka and Others 3.

Therefore, prayed this Court to allow the Criminal Petition

by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.

8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor submitted that the allegations leveled against

the petitioners in the complaint are serious and after due

investigation, the Police filed charge sheet against the

petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 415,

2023 SCC OnLine SC 90

2023 2 SCC 195

2021 SCC OnLine SC 976

SKS,J

420, 503 and 406, read with Section 34 of IPC, as such,

prayed this Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

9. Having regard to the rival submissions made and

on going through the material placed on record, it is noted

that as per the contents of the complaint, the petitioners

have allegedly attempted to extract more money from the

respondent No.2 by not executing the agreement of sale in

spite of receiving part sale consideration and threatening

him to alienate the property in favour of third parties. It is

further noted that pertaining to the said dispute, a civil

case is already pending before the Civil Court vide

O.S.No.526 of 2018.

10. At this stage, it is imperative to note that in the

case of R.Narender Yadav (supra 2) in paragraph No.19,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"19. While exercising its jurisdiction under

Section 482CrPC, the High Court has to be

conscious that this power is to be exercised

sparingly and only for the purpose of

prevention of abuse of the process of the

court or otherwise to secure the ends of

SKS,J

justice. Whether a complaint discloses a

criminal offence or not, depends upon the

nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether

the essential ingredients of a criminal offence

are present or not, has to be judged by the

High Court. A complaint disclosing civil

transaction may also have a criminal texture.

But the High Court must see whether the

dispute which is in substance of a civil

nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence.

In such a situation, if civil remedy is available

and is in fact adopted, as has happened in

the case on hand, the High Court should

have quashed the criminal proceeding to

prevent abuse of process of court."