Telangana High Court
Urabavi Venkatanna vs The State Of Telangana on 10 April, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16049 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.214
of 2024 of Maldakal Police Station, Jogulamba-Gadwal. The
offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 318
(4), 316 (2) and under Section 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto
complainant lodged a report before police on 06.12.2024 stating
that his parents purchased land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in
Sy.No.428 from the petitioner herein and after six months he
registered the above land in the name of his mother Narsamma.
But after one month, they came to know that the said land was
already registered in the name of Budda Narsanna, as such,
when his parents asked the petitioner/accused about
registration of land, the accused stated that he will sought out
the issue, but he did not do so and dragged on the matter for
years without registering the land. It is further stated
panchayats were conducted before the village elders where, the
petitioner said that he committed a mistake and he will register
the land in the name of mother of defacto complainant.
Further, when the defacto complainant asked him to register the
land, the petitioner used filthy language and also stated that he
will not register the land. As such, requested the police to take
necessary action. Basing on the said complaint the police
registered the case against the petitioner for the above offences.
3. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent No.1-State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the issue pertains to land transaction of the year 2007. The
defacto complainant is not the aggrieved party. His parents
entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. In
support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the
judgment in Delhi Race Club Vs State of U.P. 1, wherein, in
para 27 it is observed that there cannot be accusations of both
criminal breach of trust under Section 316 (2) and cheating
under Section 318 (4) of BNS; that there is no entrustment of
property by the victim to the accused. Therefore, the offence
1 2024 SCC Online SC 2248
under Section 316 (2) of BNS is not applicable to the petitioner.
To attract offence under Section 318 (4) of BNS there must be
intention to cheat from the beginning and it has to be shown
that property was dishonestly misappropriated or converted to
the use. Hence, the same is not attracted in this case. Further,
to attract the offence under Section 352 of BNS, intimidation
shall be to cause disturbance to the public. In the present case,
the matter is civil in nature and without filing the suit for
specific performance, the defacto complainant lodged a report
only to threaten the petitioner to settle the civil scores. The
defacto complainant has no locus standii to lodge a complaint
and there are not allegations against the petitioner to constitute
the alleged offences. Hence, prayed to quash the FIR registered
against the petitioner.
5. Though notice is served on 2nd respondent, none appeared
on his behalf. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would
submit that admittedly, there is a delay of 16 years in lodging
the complaint. However, the complaint shows that as
panchayats were conducted with regard to this issue, there was
delay in lodging the report. As the matter is at FIR stage, it
requires investigation, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Hence, prayed to dismiss this criminal petition.
6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel
and the material placed on record, the alleged offences against
the petitioner are under Section 316 (2), 318 (4) and 352 of
BNS. The allegations show that the said agreement was entered
in the year 2007 but registration was not done in favour of
parents of the defacto complainant and there is no information
on record to show that that any suit is filed. According to
learned counsel for the petitioner, no suit is filed for specific
performance of contract. The averments in the complaint
manifestly show that it is only a non-performance of contract by
the petitioner/accused for which the party has to file suit for
specific performance. There are no grounds to constitute the
offences alleged against the petitioner as there is no
entrustment of property to him to constitute the offence under
Section 316 (2) of BNS and to prove the offence under Section
318 (4) the complainant has to prove that from the inception the
accused has intention to cheat. The petitioner entered into
agreement of sale and he repeatedly said that he will register the
land. It is also seen that panchayats were held before the village
elders, which shows that Section 318 (4) does not attract to the
averments in the complaint. Furthermore, as the alleged
execution of agreement of sale is of the year 2007 and the
present complaint is lodged in the year 2024, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of
process of law and the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner is liable to be quashed.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.214 of 2024 of
Maldakal Police Station, Jogulamba-Gadwal are hereby
quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :10.04.2025
Rds
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.16049 OF 2024
DATE : 10.04.2025
Rds
