Telangana High Court
Avireddy Ganesh Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 5 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6601 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.6875 of 2021 on the file of VII-Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, registered for
the offences under Sections 405, 420, 441 and 503 of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').
2. The facts of the case are that on 10.10.2018 the
complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that he
is the owner of property bearing MCH No.16-11-469/47 & 47/A
of Moosarambagh and running a church in the name and style
of Christian Life Centre Church since ten years. When the 2nd
respondent was in need of money, petitioner No.1/A.1
approached him through A.3 and advised 2nd respondent to
obtain loan and as the SIBIL rating of 2nd respondent is very low
and of A.1 is very high, the 2nd respondent has agreed to
transfer the title of above property in the name of petitioners for
getting higher amount as loan. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent
executed an agreement of sale in favour of A.1 and obtained
housing loan of Rs.1,08,00,000/- in his name. Thereafter, the
2nd respondent executed sale deed bearing document No.3610 of
2013 dated 25.07.2013 in favour of petitioners and the said sale
deed was hypothecated in HDFC Bank till repayment of loan
amount in the name of A.1. After receiving the loan amount,
the 2nd respondent and A.1 shared the loan amount equally and
entered into MOU stating that A.1 and A.2 to re-transfer the
property in the name of 2nd respondent after the entire loan
amount is paid and cleared, but the accused did not transfer
the property in the name of 2nd respondent and violated the
terms of MOU. The petitioners came to the house of 2nd
respondent on 12.06.2016 and 14.06.2016 with an ill-intention
to occupy the same by dispossessing him from the subject
property, but the 2nd respondent resisted them. Hence, the
accused threatened him with dire consequences and claimed
that at any cost, they would dispossess the 2nd respondent. As
such, the 2nd respondent requested the Court to take action
against the accused. The said complaint was referred to the
police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered the
case, investigated the same and filed charge sheet.
3. Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri
G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the
two undertakings duly signed by the 2nd respondent given to the
petitioners completely defeat the version of 2nd respondent. It
clearly establishes that petitioners are bonafide purchasers of
the subject property. He also contended that the investigating
officer should have considered that as on the date of alleged
offence, petitioners are the rightful owners of subject property,
having obtained title through registered sale deed and that the
2nd respondent himself stated that he is in permissive
possession of the subject property. Therefore, it cannot be said
that petitioners have trespassed into the subject property.
Hence, no offence under Section 441 of I.P.C, attracts to the
petitioners and in fact, the 2nd respondent was in illegal
possession of the subject property. Learned counsel further
contended that even if the version of 2nd respondent is accepted
the alleged default of MOU gives rise to a civil remedy, wherein
the 2nd respondent filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide
O.S.No.674 of 2016 on the file of XVII Senior Civil Judge, City
Civil Court at Hyderabad and the petitioners herein have filed
another suit vide O.S.No.601 of 2016 on the file of X-Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking recovery of
possession and damages against the 2nd respondent herein who
is the defendant in the said suit, for not handing over
possession of the suit property, which is also pending before the
trial Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof.R.K.Vijayasarathy and
another Vs Suda Seetharam and another 1. He also contended
that when the investigating officer accepted the version of 2nd
respondent he should have considered that mere violation of
contract does not amount to charge under Section 420 of I.P.C.
The intention to induce a person to depart with certain property
is a key ingredient of Section 415 of I.P.C., which defines
cheating. The charge sheet fails in disclosing any such
intention of cheating by the petitioners and the undertaking
given by the 2nd respondent is a clear indication that petitioners
1 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) No.1434 OF 2018
have no intention to cheat the 2nd respondent and it was the 2nd
respondent who did not perform his part of undertaking and
cheated the petitioners. Learned counsel further contended
that as no MOU is existed, the 2nd respondent cannot claim that
there is criminal breach of trust and on the contrary, the
property was entrusted to the 2nd respondent by way of
undertaking who promised to vacate the same in the time
stipulated therein, but he continued to hold the said property.
Petitioners are the bonafide purchasers and they tried to assert
their bonafide right over the subject property. There are no
averments to constitute the offence under Section 503 of I.P.C,
and this case is squarely covered by the judgment of State of
Haryana and others vs. Bhajanlal 2. The present case is filed
in the year 2018 and the alleged offence took place in the year
2016 i.e., there is delay of two years in filing complaint before
the Court and there is no explanation for the said delay. When
for the same cause of action, two suits are pending, filing a
criminal case is nothing but arm twisting the petitioners to
come to the compromise. In fact, petitioners herein are the
victims in the hands of 2nd respondent. Hence, continuation of
2 1992 supp (1) SCC 335
proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of
process of law and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent
would submit that petitioners herein entered into an agreement
only for the purpose of availing loan, as the SIBIL score of A.1 is
high they could get good amount. After entering into MOU and
even after clearance of loan amount, petitioners did not re-
register the land in favour of 2nd respondent and cheated the 2nd
respondent which caused grave prejudice to him. As such, the
said issue requires trial. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss
this criminal petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the
counsel and the material on record, the case is of the year 2016
and charge sheet is filed in the year 2018. There are allegations
and counter allegations and both parties filed civil cases against
each other. The only contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that 2nd respondent executed registered sale deed
in favour of petitioners herein and even after executing
registered sale deed and even after giving undertaking that he
will vacate the suit property, falsely filed criminal case and the
undertaking given by the 2nd respondent shows that it was given
in the year 2015. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has
sold the subject property for Rs.1,40,00,000/- in favour of
petitioners herein and he registered the said property in their
favour, after receiving total sale consideration. As there was no
accommodation available for the 2nd respondent, he requested
the purchasers to allow him to stay in the subject property till
30.06.2015. As such, 2nd respondent was allowed to stay in the
subject property and that he gave undertaking that he will
deliver vacant possession. Even according to the undertaking
the registered sale deed is of the year 2013 and there is no
averment to show why 2nd respondent is in the property even
after receiving total sale consideration and MOU entered into by
the parties. According to the investigating officer, there is MOU
between the parties and the same shows that after repayment of
loan amount, the petitioners herein have to register the property
in favour of 2nd respondent. The investigating officer has also
collected the details of three transactions of M.C.Anil Kumar for
an amount of Rs.14,40,000/-, G.Raju-Rs.15,00,000/- and
B.Venkatesh-Rs.15,00,000/-. The investigating officer has also
collected certified copies of sale deed and addressed letter to the
Branch Manager for collecting details of B.Srinivasa Raju in
whose account Rs.15,00,000/- was credited through RTGS and
K.Sadhak Kumar, in whose account Rs.15,00,000/- was
credited through RTGS, to show that loan amount is equally
shared. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the
property is registered by the 2nd respondent after receiving total
sale consideration. Both parties have filed civil suits for their
respective rights and in the present case, there is criminal
breach of trust and there are also other averments which
require trial. As such, there are no merits and the criminal
petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date : 05.11.2024
Rds
