Telangana High Court

Smt. G. Bharathamma vs The State Of Telangana, on 26 September, 2024

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA


          CRIMINAL PETITION No.12650 of 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

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

quash the docket order dated 03.12.2019 against the

petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.1181 of 2019 in C.C.No.767 of 2019

on the file of the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Rangareddy District at Medchal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de

facto complainant filed protest petition, vide Crl.M.P.No.1181

of 2019 in C.C.No.767 of 2019, against accused No.1 to 18

stating that they formed into criminal conspiracy,

misrepresenting the facts and filed compromise memos before

the Lok Adalat with an intention to cause wrongful gain and

made false statement before the Lok Adalat and got

compromise award. The trial Court, vide order dated

03.12.2019, allowed the petition and taken cognizance for the

offences punishable under Sections 192, 196, 199, 200, 209,

210, 420, 424, 406, 468, 471 read with 34 and 120(b) of the

Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said order, the

SKS,J

petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 and 9 to 12 filed the present

criminal petition.

3. Heard Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of

respondent No.1-State and Sri C. Kumar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the protest petition,

which is nothing but abuse of process of law as the matter is

purely civil in nature and that the only ground urged by

respondent No.2 in the protest petition is that the accused

formed into criminal conspiracy and misrepresented the facts

and filed compromise petitions before the Lok Adalat and they

entered into compromise in O.S.No.29 of 2013 as they settled

the matter out of the Court. He further submitted that to

harass the petitioners and to extract money from the accused

filed a false case against the petitioners and other accused

and that if respondent No.2 believes that he has a right in the

subject property, he has to avail the remedies under law and

not by filing the criminal case. He further submitted that

SKS,J

accused Nos.13 to 15, 17 and 18 filed criminal petition

No.1359 of 2020 before this Court for quashing the docket

order dated 03.12.2019 against them and the same was

allowed observing that the matter is purely civil in nature.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order dated

03.12.2019 against the petitioners.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent No.2 opposed the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the petitioners and filed counter

affidavit stating that the only ground urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioners is that the matter is purely civil in

nature, as such, criminal petition is not maintainable. He

further submitted that only because of a civil remedy may

also be available to respondent No.2, that itself is not a

ground for quashing the criminal proceedings and that there

are allegations against the petitioners, which requires trial.

Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on

record, the only allegation against the petitioners is that while

they entering into the compromise in O.S.No.29 of 2013, they

SKS,J

played fraud and acted against the interest of respondent

No.2. It is to be noted that respondent No.2 is not a party to

the civil dispute. In the event of any grievance regarding the

sale of land to accused Nos.13 to 18 by his relatives, who are

accused Nos.1 to 12, respondent No.2 ought to have

contested the same before the civil Court. Admittedly, the

civil suit was pending and in the said suit, the parties have

compromised and thereafter, the property was registered in

favour of accused Nos.13 to 18. In the said circumstances, if

respondent No.2 is aggrieved by the registration of property,

the same can be agitated before the Civil Court for

cancellation of the registered sale deed, claiming right over

the property.

7. However, accused Nos.13 to 18 have purchased the

property by making payment to the petitioners consequent to

the settlement in a civil case. In the event of any dispute with

regard to the ownership of accused Nos.13 to 18 or the right

of the petitioners to sell the land in favour of accused Nos.13

to 18, the same is purely a civil dispute, which has to be

agitated before the Civil Court. Pursuant to the orders

passed by the Lok Adalat, the petitioners received the sale

SKS,J

consideration from accused Nos.13 to 18 for registering the

land. Respondent No.2 initiated criminal proceedings alleging

fraud before the Lok Adalat bench and obtained an award.

However, the Legal Services Authority Act provides for setting

aside the award obtained fraudulently. Notably, respondent

No.2 failed to take steps to set aside the award, instead of

that he initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

As of today, the award remains in force, specifically relating

to immovable property rights.

8. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Vijayander Kumar and Others v. State of Rajasthan and

another, wherein in paragraph Nos.10 and 12, it is held as

under:

"10. Contra the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there is no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that the FIR discloses only a civil case or that there is no allegation or averment making out a criminal offence. For that purpose he relied upon the judgment of the High Court rendered in the facts of this very case in Vijander Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, already noted earlier.

12. The learned counsel for the respondents is correct in contending that a given set of facts may make

SKS,J

out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. The proposition is supported by several judgments of this Court as noted in para 16 of the judgment in Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka v. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners (P) Ltd."

9. In the present case, there are no allegations in the

complaint disclose a criminal offence. Considering the facts

and circumstances of the case, it appears respondents bona

fides are doubtful in initiating the criminal proceedings. The

record demonstrates that the continuation of criminal

proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

Therefore, as the matter is purely civil in nature and there

being no element of criminality in the transactions, the order

dated 03.12.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1181 of 2019 in

C.C.No.767 of 2019 on the file of the learned XXII

Metropolitan Magistrate, Rangareddy District at Medchal,

against the petitioners are liable to be set aside.