Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 982 (AP)

Peddolla Narimulu v. State of A. P.

2012-10-05

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
Judgment : 1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2012 of the Chevella Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent/State and none appeared for the second respondent/de facto complainant. 3. The brief facts of the case which is sought to be quashed are as follows: The first accused is the owner and possessor of a piece of land covered by Survey No.195 of an extent of Ac.2.00 situated at Nyalata Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Out of the said land, the first accused offered to sell an extent of 0.25 guntas to the second respondent for a consideration of Rs.11,500/-. The second respondent having agreed to purchase the same entered into an agreement with the first accused on 26.01.1996 and paid the total sale consideration. Ever since the date of agreement, the second respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising crops. The version of the second respondent is that since the date of agreement he has been insisting upon the first accused to execute a registered sale deed in his favour and the first accused has been postponing the same. Ultimately, on 01.04.2011 the first accused virtually refused to execute the registered sale deed and stated to the second respondent that he executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of his sons A2 to A4 in respect of the land in Survey No.195 and that the mutation also effected in the name of A2 to A4. The registered Gift Deed was allegedly executed on 01.04.2006. 4. With the aforesaid allegations, the second respondent lodged a report with the police Chevella. On the strength of the said report, the police registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2012. Thereafter, the petitioners/accused filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2012 of Chevella Police Station. 5. The question that has to be determined in the present criminal petition is whether the FIR in Crime No. 6 of 2012 of Chevella Police Station is liable to be quashed. 6. Thereafter, the petitioners/accused filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2012 of Chevella Police Station. 5. The question that has to be determined in the present criminal petition is whether the FIR in Crime No. 6 of 2012 of Chevella Police Station is liable to be quashed. 6. Admittedly, the agreement in respect of purchase of 0.25 guntas from out of Ac.2.00 belonging to the first accused in Survey No.195, Nyalata Village, Chevella Mandl, Ranga Reddy District was entered into on 26.01.1996. Even if the assertion made by the respondent that he took possession of 0.25 guntas of land from the first accused and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land is admitted, he is under a duty to obtain a regular registered sale deed within stipulated period or within the time allowed by law. It is true that he can protect his possession by exercising his civil right if the law permits him to do so. But, to constitute a criminal offence, there must be a dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception of the agreement which was entered into between A1 and the second respondent on 26.01.1996. A1 executed a registered gift deed in respect of the entire land in Survey No.195 in favour of A2 to A4, who are his sons on 01.04.2006. Till such time the second respondent did not take any steps to obtain any registered sale deed. He alleged in the complaint that he came to know about the execution of the said registered Gift Deed dated 01.04.2006 when the first accused refused to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of 0.25 guntas of land in terms of the agreement dated 26.01.1996 by stating that he executed a registered gift deed in favour of his sons i.e. A2 to A4 in respect of land in Survey No.195. 7. The questions viz. whether the second respondent can protect his possession or whether the first accused entered into the land on the ground that the second respondent did not acquire any valid right to the property are the matters which have to be decided by the civil Court. Certainly in my view, the dispute between the parties does not involve any criminal offence requiring any investigation by the police. Certainly in my view, the dispute between the parties does not involve any criminal offence requiring any investigation by the police. Keeping quite for over a period of 14 years and lodging a report with the police alleging commission of offence of cheating against the accused, in my view is abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioners/accused cannot be subjected to any criminal prosecution and the parties have to work out their remedies before a civil Court. This dispute undoubtedly is purely of civil in nature and resorting to criminal prosecution in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law and if it is allowed, it will result in miscarriage of justice. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2012 of Chevella Police Station, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed against the petitioners/A1 to A4 and the criminal petition is allowed.