Sumana Nunugond vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2054 Tel

Telangana High Court

Sumana Nunugond vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.10899 of 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner,

who is arrayed as accused No.3, to quash the proceedings

against her in Crime No.468 of 2023, on the file of the

Banjara Hills Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,

120B of IPC.

2. Heard Sri D. Vishnu Prasad Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and Sri Ch.Srinivas,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case are that accused Nos.1 and 2

obtained a hand loan of Rs.3,50,00,000/- from the mother

of de facto complainant and allegedly executed a registered

simple mortgage deed bearing document No.18369/2013,

dated 19.12.2013 against the properties i.e., Flat

Nos.101,102, 305 and 405 in Sy.No.78, Madhapur Village,

Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Both the

accused regularly paid interest rate till 26.02.2020 without

any default and they have released two properties from the

alleged mortgage during the lifetime of de facto

complainant's mother who died on 17.08.2020. Out of

Rs.3,50,00,000/-, accused Nos.1 and 2 repaid an amount

of Rs.2,45,00,000/- and accused No.2 stopped paying the

interest during the corona period and further, it has come

to the knowledge of de facto complainant that the premises

bearing Flat Nos.101 and 102 were leased out to Medicover

Hospital and accused Nos.1 and 2 were enjoying the rents.

As such, the de facto complainant served a legal notice on

Medicover Hospital to deposit the rents with them. On

20.02.2023, the de facto complainant obtained

Encumbrance Certificate for the property bearing Flat

Nos.101 and 102, as they came to know that Flat Nos. 101

and 102 were sold to accused No.3/petitioner by virtue of a

registered sale deed bearing document No.13843/2015,

dated 31.10.2015 and document No.4646/2017, dated

04.05.2017. The Accused No.3 being bonafide purchaser,

is a resident of U.S.A and was represented through her

Special power Attorney i.e., accused Nos. 4 and 5.

4. On the basis of complaint, Banjara Hills Police

Station registered a case vide FIR No.468 of 2023 for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,

468, 471, 120B of IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that

the complaint filed by the de facto complainant prima facie

does not disclose any cognizable offence warranting

registration of FIR No.468 of 2023, insofar as accused No.3

is concerned, she is only bona fide purchaser and there

are no specific allegations levelled against her and she is

not involved in the entire transactions between the de facto

complainant and accused No.1. Further submitted that the

de facto complainant failed to explain the fact as to how the

two properties were released by his mother when the

alleged simple mortgage deed specifically prohibits

accepting part payments. When the de facto complainant

admitted receiving the substantial repayment of the loan,

he now cannot contend that the sale deed executed by

accused No.1 in favour of accused No.3, who is bonafide

purchaser for valuable consideration, is not enforceable

and such contention is frivolous and is being devised for

giving a coloruable exercise of a purely civil dispute.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also further

submits that there are no specific allegations in the

complaint against accused No.3 except that she is the

bonafide purchaser and resident of U.S.A and in the

contract between i.e., mother of the de facto complainant

and accused Nos.1 & 2, these petitioners are not parties.

Therefore, there are no averments in the complaint to

constitute the alleged offence against the petitioner. As

such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner/Accused No.3.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 would submit that this petitioner in collusion with

accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into contract with accused

Nos.1 and 2, and there is a conspiracy between the parties

to purchase the said property and accused No.3 knowingly

entered into contract. As such the petitioner is also liable

for punishment. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss

the petition.

8. Having regard to the rival submissions and upon

perusal of the material available on record, the allegations

against the petitioner that she purchased the property from

accused Nos. 1 and 2. According to the complaint, the said

property is under the mortgage with mother of de facto

complainant and further as per the averments in the

complaint there is an outstanding loan amount equal to

Rs.3,50,00,000/- and these accused Nos. 1 and 2 have

already paid an amount of Rs.2,45,00,000/- and his

mother allegedly released two properties and that there are

total four properties under mortgage with the mother of de

facto complainant.

9. Admittedly, this petitioner is not party to the contract

and accused No.3 is the purchaser of the subject property

and she is resident of U.S.A. The averments in the

complaint does not constitute the offences of forgery and

cheating against the petitioner. Except stating that she

conspired with accused No.1 and 2, there is no specific

allegation levelled against the petitioner. The averments of

the complaint does not shows that this petitioner

misappropriated the property and it falls under the

category 5 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 1.

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the observations

made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana

and others vs. Bhajanlal 2, whereunder the following

categories were illustrated, wherein the extraordinary

power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be

exercised by the High Court to prevent the abuse of process

of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The

said categories are extracted as under:

"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.

2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if

1992 supp (1) SCC 335

1992 supp (1) SCC 335

any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

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.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. In view thereof, it can be said that category No.5 as

extracted above is relevant to the present case. Therefore,

this Court is of the considered view that even if the trial is

conducted, no purpose will be served and there are no

other specific allegations against the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against the accused No.3 in Crime No.468 of

2023 on the file of the Banjara Hills Police Station,

Hyderabad are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this

Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 06.06.2024 ktm