Gundla Venkata Ramaiah vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 4686 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4686 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Gundla Venkata Ramaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 9 April, 2025

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL PETITION No.3853 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash proceedings against the

petitioners in C.C.No.1130 of 2018 on the file of Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

2. The basis for filing the charge sheet against the petitioners

herein is the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The allegation

against the petitioners is that the 2nd respondent purchased the plot

No.7 in Sy.No.528 and 529 to an extent of 827 sq.yds in Vijetha

Layout of Muthangi Village, Patancheru, Sangareddy District, near

Bombay Highway. The plot was purchased from these petitioners

and A3 on 21.01.2000. He constructed a family portion and

compound wall, covering the entire plot, and also obtained an

electricity connection in the year 2002. The said property was used

as a godown.

3. There was a layout of the land in Acs.19.13 guntas in

Sy.No.528 and 529, after obtaining permission from the

Grampanchayat. According to the complainant, the petitioners and

A3 have again sold the entire extent of the land as agricultural land

to several others. Since the plot was initially sold to the 2nd

respondent and later the layout land was sold as an agricultural

land to third parties, the 2nd respondent was cheated. The police

registered the complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and

filed a charge sheet for the said offences.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks quashing of the

proceedings on the following grounds:

1. The allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature.

2. Section 420 of IPC is not attracted, as there is no wrongful

loss to the complainant or wrongful gain to the petitioners.

3. There is no misappropriation or breach of trust on the part

of the petitioners.

4. By no stretch of imagination, will the complainant's

property be affected, as his plot was not sold.

5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that,

having knowledge about the purchase of the plot by the 2nd respondent,

the petitioners have deliberately sold the land to third parties, resulting

in wrongful loss to the complainant.

6. In A.M. Mohan vs. The State represented by SHO and Ors1,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of Indian Penal Code are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:

(i) The deception of any person;

(ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and

(iii) Dishonest intention of the Accused at the time of making the inducement."

7. Ingredients of Sec 406 IPC:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepak Gaba v. State of U.P.,2

held that:

"Section 406 IPC prescribes punishment for breach of trust which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, when ingredients of Section 405 IPC are satisfied. For Section

MANU/SC/0227/2024, 20.03.2024 - SC

(2023) 3 SCC 423

406 IPC to get attracted, there must be criminal breach of trust in terms of Section 405 IPC.

15. For Section 405 IPC to be attracted, the following have to be established:

(a) the accused was entrusted with property, or entrusted with dominion over property:

(b) the accused had dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use that property, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property or wilfully suffer any other person to do so; and

(c) such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract which the person has made, touching the discharge of such trust."

8. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had laid down following seven categories of cases in

which the court can quash criminal proceedings:

1. Where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at 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 FIR and other materials, if 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 allegations made in the FIR 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.

1992 AIR 604

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, unless a Magistrate has issued an order for the same, as contemplated under Section 155(2)of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR are absurd to the extent that no prudent man 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, with regard 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 intention 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 / or personal grudge.

9. As seen from the sale transaction, it is not specifically stated

by the 2nd respondent that his property was sold, or that any person

has either claimed the plot of the 2nd respondent or filed any suit

against the 2nd respondent claiming his plot. When the interest of

the 2nd respondent is safeguarded and no one has claimed his land,

the question of attracting the ingredients of either cheating or

misappropriation does not arise. The registration of land and

possession in favour of the 2nd respondent is neither disputed by

anyone nor was the possession disturbed in any manner

whatsoever. In the charge sheet, only three persons were examined,

who are, the 2nd respondent, another friend of the 2nd respondent,

and the investigating officer. The continuation of the trial will not