Telangana High Court

Kuthadi Srinivas Erukala Srinivas vs The State Of Telangana on 21 September, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1119 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against him in

C.C.No.2424 of 2023 pending on the file of IX-Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Medchal-Malkajgiri

District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 420, 386, 509, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code (for

short 'I.P.C').

2. The facts of the case are that on 10.12.2022 the defacto

complainant-2nd respondent gave a complaint stating that she is

the owner of land to an extent of Ac.2.11 guntas in Sy.No.316

and Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.316/A, backside of Classic Dhaba

at Medchal. It is stated that in the year 2014 a total extent of

Ac.2.15 guntas was given for development and executed a AGP

in favour of one Kuthadi Srinivas, petitioner herein of Laxmi

Balaji Developers, wherein, an agreement of sale was entered

stating that the said Srinivas will take 67% and the 2nd

respondent will get 33% profit to her. On 26.10.2015 the said

Srinivas said that he would build 12 villas and give her, as her

share of 33% profit and prepared a Memorandum of

understanding. But the said Srinivas did not build and did not

hand over Villas to her. When she asked about her share, the

said Srinivas along with others threatened her. On 10.10.2022

at about 10.30 hours, the 2nd respondent along with her two

sons saw that their land was fenced with tin. Basing on the

MOU, when the 2nd respondent asked her share, then the

Srinivas along with his sons threatened them, scolded and also

warned to kill them. He also demanded to return the MOU and

money otherwise he would kill her and that he would break the

legs of her son. By the said acts, she realized that she was

cheated by the said Srinivas. As such, she lodged a complaint

with the police against the said Srinivas.

3. Heard Sri C.Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

appearing for the 1st respondent-state. Even though notice is

served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on her behalf.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Laxmi Balaji

Developers Pvt. Ltd., and he entered into an agreement of sale-

cum-GPA with the 2nd respondent and due to various reasons

including non-cooperation of 2nd respondent and her family

members the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney

was not fulfilled and the development work has not commenced,

whereby the said AGPA was cancelled, vide document No.1969

of 2016 dated 17.03.2016, by the 2nd respondent and her family

members and by suppressing the above facts, in order to extract

huge amounts from the petitioner, she filed the present case.

The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is

that after cancellation of AGPA, immediately the 2nd respondent

along with her family members again sold the land by way of

residential plots to petitioner/A.1, where the petitioner

purchased 39 plots from the 2nd respondent through different

registered sale deeds in the name of firm and the sale deeds are

also filed by the petitioner. Therefore, having sold the land by

way of residential plots prior to filing of complaint, registration

of present crime is illegal. He further submitted that petitioner

herein also lodged a complaint to the police against the 2nd

respondent including her family members vide FIR No.429 of

2023 and the said crime was registered for the offences under

Sections 420 and 506 r/w.34 of I.P.C. According to the 2nd

respondent the alleged incident happened on 10.10.2022 but

after two months, suddenly she woke up and gave a complaint

against the petitioner which shows that it is nothing but an

afterthought. As such, prayed this Court to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

there are allegations and counter allegations in this case which

requires trial, as such requested the Court to dismiss this

petition.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by both the

counsel and the material on record, it is seen that the

investigating officer filed charge sheet stating that the 2nd

respondent entered into AGPA in the year 2014 for development

of her land in the ratio of 66% and 33% profit. When the 2nd

respondent along with her two sons went to the scene, she

observed that it was fenced with tin around the land and when

she along with her sons asked the petitioner, he along with

others scolded her. Whereas, the contention of the petitioner is

that the alleged AGPA was cancelled in the year 2016 itself and

he also filed the said document which shows that there is no

AGPA between the parties existing on the date of complaint.

Further petitioner also filed sale deed showing that he

purchased property from the 2nd respondent in the name of

firm, through various sale deeds which shows that when AGPA

is cancelled the question of giving share of 33% profit to her

does not arise, whereas the allegation against the petitioner is

that there is MOU between the parties but the same is not filed

by the petitioner herein and according to the 2nd respondent the

said MOU is with her and the petitioner threatened her for

return of the said MOU and also demanded amount. The

further contention of petitioner herein is that 2nd respondent

tried to convert the civil dispute though she has no right over

the property and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Paramjeet Batra Vs State of Uttarakhand and

others 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code 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

1 (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673

hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.

13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by Respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to Respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.

7. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randheer Singh Vs State of Uttar

Pradesh and others 2,

"33. In this case, it appears that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment against a purchaser. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the FIR does not disclose any offence so far as the appellant is concerned. There is no whisper of how and in what manner, this appellant is involved in any criminal offence and the charge-sheet, the relevant part whereof has been extracted above, is absolutely vague. There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has

2 (2021) 14 Supreme Court Cases 626

to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra [Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 76] extracted above.

34. The given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. Only because a civil remedy is available may not be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. But as observed above, in this case, no criminal offence has been made out in the FIR read with the charge-sheet so far as this appellant is concerned. The other accused Rajan Kumar has died".

8. Reverting to the facts of this case, the dispute is with

regard to share in the subject property to an extent of 33%. The

allegation of threatening to kill when they visited property, was

on 10.10.2022 but no complaint is lodged before the police

immediately and the report was lodged on 10.12.2022 with a

delay of 59 days creates doubt. Further, the dispute between

the parties is civil in nature, 2nd respondent can file a suit by

availing civil remedy. As there is no criminal offence in the

present case and in view of the observations made in Randheer

Singh's case (referred to supra 2), continuation of proceedings

against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and

hence, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.