Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 11 (TS)

Burujula Ranga Rao v. State of Telangana

2020-01-06

G.SRI DEVI

body2020
ORDER : G. Sri Devi, J. 1. This Criminal Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners, who are A.6 and A.7, seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 1308 of 2019 of L.B. Nagar (Law & Order) Police Station, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant has lodged a complaint before the police stating that she along with others has purchased Flats from M/s. PVT Constructions, represented by its Partners 'Developer) and the land owner Mrs. T. Divya Reddy and another in respect of the Apartment, by name "Samhitha Enclave" constructed on the land admeasuring 581 sq. yards, bearing Plot Nos. 111 and 112 in Sy. Nos. 14, 15 and 16, situated at Thummabowli Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, she came to know that the Accused persons have hatched a plan to cheat the complainant and others and in furtherance of their plan, they offered to sell the Flats to the complainant and others by suppressing the fact that the said property was already mortgaged with M/s. Sundaram BNP Paribas Homes Finance Limited for obtaining loan and without clearing the said loan, they have sold the Flats to the complainant and others. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action against the accused persons. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Sri D. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for impleaded respondent No. 2/complainant. Perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, in fact, the owners of Plot Nos. 111 and 112 in Sy. Nos. 14, 15 and 16, situated at Thummabowli Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, have initially executed a registered Development Agreement in favour of M/s. PVT Constructions, a Partnership Firm, on 06.05.2014 and since the said Developer could not complete the construction, petitioner No. 1 (A.6) joined as a Partner on 27.09.2017 in the said M/s. PVT Constructions and thereafter the Partners have executed a MOU in favour of the petitioners on 27.09.2018 and in furtherance of the said MOU, the petitioners have sold the subject Flats to the complainant and others. It is also contended that there is no whisper either in the reconstitution of Partnership Deed that M/s. PVT Constructions have created mortgage on the subject property and, therefore, roping the petitioners in the instant crime is unjustified. It is also contended that the complainant also executed a MOU while purchasing the Flat that they will pay the EMI to M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited and suppressing the said fact, they have lodged the present complaint. It is contended that the petitioners are law abiding citizens and they are ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court and would cooperate with the investigation, if they are released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the aforesaid crime. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant vehemently opposed the relief sought in the above petition, stating that there was no MOU between the petitioners and the complainant and the said MOU is a fabricated document and hence the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. 6. Admittedly, the so-called MOU dt. 27.09.2018 placed on record clearly shows that there is an understanding between the petitioners and the complainant and condition No. 3 of the said MOU stipulates that the seller is not responsible for the documents, which are deposited in Sundaram Finance Limited. Thus, by taking into consideration the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and also keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 by imposing some conditions. 7. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed and the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 are directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 1308 of 2019 of L.B. Nagar (Law & Order) Police Station, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, on their executing separate personal bonds for Rs. 7. In the result, this criminal petition is allowed and the petitioners/A.6 and A.7 are directed to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 1308 of 2019 of L.B. Nagar (Law & Order) Police Station, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District, on their executing separate personal bonds for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two local sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Station House Officer and subject to the condition that the petitioners would cooperate with the Investigation Agency by producing the relevant documents, which are required for the purpose of investigation, and would report before the Investigating Officer on every alternative day between 10-00 a.m. and 12-00 Noon till completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.