Telangana High Court
Kailash Chand Kedia vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.153 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking to
quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.1285 of 2021
on the file of the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kukatpally at Prashanth Nagar, Cyberabad (for short 'trial
Court'), pertaining to Crime No.800 of 2020 of P.S. Gachibowli,
registered for the offences under Sections 417 and 420 r/w. 34
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioners and
Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2-
de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement
'unclaimed'. Unclaimed notice is deemed to be proper service
of notice. Inspite of the same, there is no representation on
behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the
de facto complainant and his mother are the tenants of
2 JS, J
accused No.1 and petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect
of H.No.96/HIG in Sy.No.132 of Gachibowli, Serilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The accused No.1 is well
acquainted with the de facto complainant. Accused No.1
projected himself as the owner of above property consisting of
G+5 floors, total 52 rooms and offered de facto complainant to
establish hostel in the said premises after completion of
construction and sought for financial help from the de facto
complainant. The de facto complainant extended his financial
help by lending an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- on different dates.
The de facto complainant also invested Rs.20-25 lakhs for
establishment of hostel. The construction of the said hostel
should be completed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3,
but they failed to complete the construction within time.
3.1. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 entered
into fresh lease deeds, dated 02.01.2020 in respect of same
premises parting a huge amount of Rs.40,00,000/- as advance.
The accused No.1 and petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have
criminally conspired and induced the de facto complainant to
enter into lease agreement, dated 14.11.2018 with accused
No.1 and also subsequent rental deeds with petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 3. Subsequently, on coming to know about
3 JS, J
the fraudulent acts of accused No.1 and petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3, the de facto complainant demanded for
repayment of entire amount including investment in the hostel
and asked them to vacate the premises. But the accused No.1
and petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 postponed the repayment
of the amount to the de facto complainant. The petitioner-
accused No.3 started demanding full rent amount and
threatened the de facto complainant and got issued legal
notice, dated 31.08.2020 with false allegations, for which, the
de facto complainant got issued reply notice.
3.2. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have
obtained signatures of the de facto complainant and his mother
on lease agreements. The petitioner-accused No.3 took the
originals on the pretext of obtaining the signatures of his wife
i.e., the petitioner-accused No.2 and did not return the originals
to the de facto complainant. The accused No.1 in collusion with
the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 obtained hand loan of
huge amount of Rs.78,00,000/- and created story of quarrel
and settlement and entered into fresh rental deeds, dated
01.02.2020 with petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and parted
huge amount of Rs.40,00,000/-. Thus, the de facto complainant
4 JS, J
filed a complaint against accused No.1 and petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3 for the alleged offences.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are nothing to
do with the alleged offences. They are innocent and were
falsely implicated in the case. The disputes between the parties
are purely civil in nature. He further submits that in fact, the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are wife and husband. They
have purchased part of the premises from accused No.1.
Thereafter, the petitioner-accused No.3 came to know that
accused No.1 and de facto complainant have entered into a
lease agreement, dated 14.11.2018 without his knowledge.
When he questioned them, they threatened him with dire
consequences, as such, he has lodged a complaint against
accused No.1 and de facto complainant on 20.12.2019. The
said case was registered as a case in Crime No.700 of 2019.
5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the entire
allegations are against accused No.1, but the de facto
complainant has unnecessarily implicated the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 3 in the present case, only to blackmail
them and settle the matter. He further submits that the
5 JS, J
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have already invoked
Arbitration Proceedings against the de facto complainant. The
learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, has directed the de facto complainant to pay the
monthly rents from February, 2021, to the petitioners herein,
however, he never obeyed the same.
6. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that during the
pendency of the present criminal petition, the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 3 have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, dated 19.10.2022 along with a lease deed,
wherein, there is a clause to the effect that both the parties
shall withdraw the cases filed against each other. Thereafter,
the de facto complainant has also given an undertaking and
declaration, dated 12.12.2022 stating that his grievance is only
against accused No.1, not against the petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3 and there is no involvement of the petitioners
herein. Though the petitioners have withdrawn the case
pending against the de facto complainant, he has not
withdrawn the present case. All the allegations levelled against
the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are false and baseless.
The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged about 72 and 66
6 JS, J
years respectively. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor contended that there are specific allegations
against the petitioners and the allegations levelled in the
complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of
trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings
at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. For the sake of convenience, Sections 417 and 420 IPC
are extracted hereunder:
"417. Punishment for cheating.--
Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine, or with both.
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.--
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed,
and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years,
and shall also be liable to fine."
9. On careful perusal of the entire contents of the charge
sheet discloses that all the allegations levelled against the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are of the year 2020. The
7 JS, J
de facto complainant and his mother are the tenants of the
accused. It is an admitted fact that the de facto complainant
and accused No.1 are well acquainted with each other since
2020 and there are some financial transactions between them
during 2018 and 2019.
10. It appears that major allegations are levelled against the
accused No.1, who alleged to have induced the de facto
complainant. It is to be noted here that a Memorandum of
Understanding, dated 19.10.2022 was executed between the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and de facto complainant,
agreeing for closing of criminal cases against the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 3 on payment of certain amounts.
Subsequently, the de facto complainant has given an
undertaking-cum-declaration, dated 12.12.2022, wherein, it is
clearly stated that the actual complaint is against accused No.1
and he has paid the amounts to accused No.1 only. He has
not paid any amounts to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3
and they have no involvement in Crime No.800 of 2020, which
was numbered as C.C.No.1285 of 2021. He also undertook to
co-operate for removal of the names of the petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3 from the present complaint. Therefore, it is crystal
8 JS, J
clear that there is a settlement between the parties to this
criminal petition with regard to the present criminal case.
11. In order to prove the offence of cheating, it is settled
principle that the intention on the part of the accused to cheat
the de facto complainant, shall be from inception. In the
present case on hand, the de facto complainant initially was not
aggrieved of the acts of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3,
when they failed to complete the construction of the said hostel
within time. Later on, the de facto complainant demanded for
repayment of advance amount, but the accused failed to repay
the said amount, for which, the de facto complainant did not
take any recourse. Mere non-payment of the amount to be
repaid, does not amount to cheating.
12. As seen from the list of witnesses examined by the
Police, there are seven witnesses. Out of which, three are de
facto complainant and his family members, who are interested
witnesses. Remaining witnesses are panch witnesses and
Investigation Officers. Viewed from any angle, all the
allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and
3 are relating to money and property issues, which are purely
civil in nature. There is no proper evidence collected by the
9 JS, J
Police to show the involvement of petitioners-accused Nos.2
and 3 in the alleged crime.
13. Above all, there is a settlement between the petitioners-
accused Nos.2 and 3 and de facto complainant by way of a
Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.10.2022. It is the
case of the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 that they had
already withdrawn the criminal case filed by them against the
de facto complainant, but the de facto complainant for the
reasons best known to him, is not coming forward for
settlement or compromise in compliance of the terms of
Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.10.2022.
14. It is evident from record that the de facto complainant
had executed an undertaking-cum-declaration, dated
12.12.2022, wherein, he admitted he has not paid any amounts
to the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and they have no
involvement in the present crime. In the present scenario, it is
relevant to make a reference to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal 1,
wherein, it was held that when there is a compromise entered
by the parties and when there is a clause with regard to
withdrawal of the cases, the parties have to adhere to the
2005(3) SCC 299
10 JS, J
same. In the present case also, the parties have entered into
compromise, in which, there is a clause to the effect that the
2nd respondent-de facto complainant shall withdraw the cases
pending against the petitioners herein. In spite of such clause,
the present criminal case is not withdrawn, which goes against
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment.
15. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case
and the settled principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the above decision, this Court is of the firm
view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to abuse of process
of law and the same are liable to be quashed.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.1285 of 2021 on the file of the learned
XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Prashanth
Nagar, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed.
11 JS, J
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 25.03.2025
rev
