Telangana High Court
Velavolu Madan vs The State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4896 OF 2020
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the
petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings against
him in CC.No.951 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Nalgonda, for the offences under Sections 420 and
406 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of
the house property and he offered the said property for sale. The
defacto complainant/2nd respondent agreed to purchase the said
property, and he entered into an agreement of sale on
14.10.2019 with the accused. The agreement was for a total
consideration of Rs.33 lakhs and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was
received from the complainant towards advance. There is a
clause in the agreement of sale that, within 60 days of the
agreement, the balance sale consideration amount should be
paid, and thereafter registration has to be done. However, the
2nd respondent failed to pay the balance sale consideration
within 60 days, i.e., by 14.12.2019.
3. On 30.12.2019, a notice was sent by the petitioner to the
2nd respondent/defacto complainant through an advocate. In the
said notice it was stated that if the sale is not concluded within
7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the agreement of
sale dated 14.10.2019 shall stand cancelled.
4. Having received the notice, the 2nd respondent again paid
an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 11.02.2020 and Rs.20,000/- on
01.01.2020. Thereafter, no amount was paid. Accordingly, the
property was sold on 09.08.2020 by the petitioner herein.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner waited for nearly nine months before selling
the property. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent failed to make good
the payment of the balance sale consideration.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent would submit that though a notice was issued and
received by the 2nd respondent, in view of the petitioner
accepting the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on 11.02.2020, the
limitation, which was in the agreement of sale would be
extended, and there is no time limit for payment of the amount.
Since the property was already sold, it is clear that the petitioner
intend to cheat the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the 2nd
respondent prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. He also relied upon the Judgment of the Honourable
Supreme Court in Dilip Kaur and others v. Jagnar Singh and
another 1, wherein it was held as follows:
" 9. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Penal Code are:
"(i) Deception of any persons;
(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to
deliver any property; or
(iii) To consent that any person shall retain any
property and finally intentionally inducing that
person to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit."
11. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that the High
Court would exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when
one or the other propositions of law, as laid down in R.
Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta [(2009) 1 SCC 516 : (2009) 1
SCC (Cri) 567] is attracted, which are as under: (SCC p.
523, para 15)
"(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its
inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and,
in particular, a first information report unless the
allegations contained therein, even if given face value and
taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable
offence.
(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very
exceptional circumstances, would not look to any
document relied upon by the defence.
(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the
allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an
offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass
(2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 696
an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any
mens rea or actus reus.
(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by
itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal
proceedings should not be allowed to continue."
8. The following facts are not disputed:
i) The petitioner owns the house property.
ii) Agreement of sale was entered into on 14.10.2019 with a
clause that the sale transaction has to be concluded within 60
days, i.e., by 14.12.2019.
iii) A notice was issued on 30.12.2019 to conclude the sale
within seven days, and the said notice was received by the 2nd
respondent.
iv) The petitioner received Rs.2,20,000/- on 11.02.2020.
v) The subject property was sold by the petitioner on
09.08.2020.
9. To attract an offence of cheating, the prosecution has to
prove:
i) dishonest or fraudulent inducement of a person by deceit;
ii) that such deceived person should have delivered property;
and
iii) that such acts should have resulted in wrongful loss to the
person.
10. To attract an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal
Code, there must be entrustment of any property or amount,
which should have been subjected to misappropriation.
11. In the present case, both the parties agreed for the sale of
the subject property, and a certain amount was given as
advance by the 2nd respondent. It cannot be said that the
petitioner entertained any criminal intent or played any
deception at the inception of the transaction. Further, it is not in
dispute that, having received the notice, at no point of time till
09.08.2020, i.e., nearly 8 months after receiving the notice, did
the 2nd respondent inform the petitioner that he was ready with
the balance sale consideration to conclude the sale.
12. The facts in the present case are purely civil in nature.
Only for the reason of the petitioner selling away the property 8
months after issuing the notice will not attract any of the
ingredients either under Section 420 or Section 406 of the
Indian Penal Code.
13. The argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent is that the petitioner had accepted Rs.2,20,000/- in
February 2020, which in itself would denote that there was no
limitation for the sale transaction. The said aspect can be
agitated in the civil Court.
14. There are no ingredients which are attracted in the present
transaction interse the petitioner and the 2nd respondent.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No.951 of 2020 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nalgonda, are hereby
quashed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 02.04.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4896 OF 2020
Dt. 02.04.2025
tk
