Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 591 (TS)

Rapolu Shobha, Warangal Dt. v. State Of Telangana

2022-09-13

D.NAGARJUN

body2022
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused No.2 to quash Crime No.113 of 2015 of Lingala Ghanpur Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 420 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The basis for the Police, Lingala Ghanpur to register the case against the petitioner-accused No.2 is private complaint filed by the respondent No2-de-facto complainant before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jangaon, which was forwarded to Police Station for further investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The facts in brief as per the private complaint filed before the trial Court under Section 200 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure is as under: a) Respondent No.2 is the owner and possessor of land property to the extent of Ac.5.37 guntas i.e., Ac.1.04 guntas in Sy.No.540/B, Ac.2.29 guntas in Sy.No.540/A, Ac.1.00 guntas in Sy.No.546/B, Ac.0.07 guntas in Sy.No.547/A, Ac.0.18 guntas in Sy.No.546/A, B and Ac.0.19 guntas in Sy.No.546 of Bandlagudem H/o. Lingala Ghanapur of Warangal District. The said lands were purchased under registered sale deed bearing document Nos. 1479 of 2008, 2186 of 2008, 2187 of 2008, 4161 of 2008 and 4565 of 2008. After purchase, the name of respondent No.2 was also recorded as owner on revenue records. Pattadar passbooks and title deed passbooks were also given in favour of respondent No.2 and he has been in peaceful possession of the property since the date of purchase. Respondent No.2 along with other land owners have jointly formed a layout including the property belonging to respondent No.2 and they have given a GPA in favour of Linga Murthy i.e., accused No.1 herein vide document bearing No. BK-IV 7/2011 dated 16.03.2011. As per the said GPA, accused No.1 is expected to execute registered sale deed in favour of person nominated by M/s. Country Club (India) Limited in whose favour residential plots have been allotted by M/s. Country Club (India) Limited or M/s. Country Condos Limited. As per the said GPA, accused No.1 is expected to execute registered sale deed in favour of person nominated by M/s. Country Club (India) Limited in whose favour residential plots have been allotted by M/s. Country Club (India) Limited or M/s. Country Condos Limited. b) Accused No.1 with criminal intention and in order to cause wrongful loss on account of increase in the prices of land properties, conspired with petitioner-accused No.2 having monetary dealings joined with her to snatch away the land of the respondent No.2 and executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.3685 of 2015 dated 22.05.2015 against the clause in the GPA, wherein GPA holder is expected to executed sale deed only in the name of person, who is nominated by M/s. Country Club (India) Limited. Basing on the said private complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.113 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 420 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. c) Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.2 seeking quahsment of FIR on the following grounds: i) The petitioner-accused No.2 is innocent. Respondent No. 2 has converted civil dispute into criminal case with baseless allegations. Even if the contents of complaint are accepted to be true, the offence under Sections 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted. ii) Accused No.1 the GPA holder has obtained consent letter from M/s. Country Club (India) Limited to sell the land basing on which he has executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide document No.3681 of 2015 dated 22-05-2015 and thereby accused No.2 has not committed any offence. iii) The dispute between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 is civil in nature and if at all the respondent No.12 has got any grievance, he shall approach competent civil court and therefore criminal case cannot be entertained. 3. Respondent No.2 has filed counter through his counsel stating that the averments of the complaint clearly shows that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sections 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Unless enquiry is completed by the Police, the truth or otherwise of the allegations will not come to light and the petitioner-accused No.2 is not a party in a civil suit. Unless enquiry is completed by the Police, the truth or otherwise of the allegations will not come to light and the petitioner-accused No.2 is not a party in a civil suit. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner-accused No.2 that respondent No.2 has converted civil dispute into criminal case is incorrect. Even if the civil suit is filed, the acts done by the petitioner-accused No.2 and accused No.1 constitute an offence alleged against them and therefore, sought for dismissal of the criminal petition. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that since investigation is still pending, let the Police investigate the case so that the allegations made against the accused will come to light and at this stage, this Court cannot quash FIR. 5. Now the point for determination is: “Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused in Crime No.113 of 2015 of Lingala Ghanpur Police Station, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? 6. Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2, Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-de-facto complainant as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused No.2 is a bonafide purchaser and she is no way concerned with whatever agreement between the accused No.1 and respondent No.2. The petitioner-accused No.2 has purchased the property for valid sale consideration. It is also submitted further that accused No.1 has got GPA to transfer the property and respondent No.2 has not disputed the GPA and thereby the transfer of the property in favour of petitioner-accused No.2 by accused No.1 is valid and thereby no offence is made out. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that petitioner-accused No.2 is aware about al the conditions imposed in the GPA and without there being any authorisation from the Country Club, the petitioner-accused No.2 has purchased the property in order to cause wrongful loss to respondent No.2. Therefore, entire transaction is illegal and hence sought for dismissal of the criminal petition. 8. According to the respondent No.2, the petitioner-accused No.2 has committed the offence as accused No.1 has executed registered sale deed bearing document No. 3681 of 2015 dated 22.05.2015 in favour of petitioner-accused No.1 by transferring Ac.5.37 guntas of land. Therefore, entire transaction is illegal and hence sought for dismissal of the criminal petition. 8. According to the respondent No.2, the petitioner-accused No.2 has committed the offence as accused No.1 has executed registered sale deed bearing document No. 3681 of 2015 dated 22.05.2015 in favour of petitioner-accused No.1 by transferring Ac.5.37 guntas of land. The petitioner, who has approached the Court seeking quashment of FIR should have filed copy of the sale deed through which accused No.2 has purchased the land from accused No.1. Before purchasing, the petitioner-accused No.2 is expected to make due diligence as to the ownership of accused no.1 or otherwise in respect of property, which she was purchasing. Admittedly, the accused No.1 is no the owner of the properties purchased by the petitioner-accused No.2. Accused No.1 is only GPA holder of Respondent No.2. The GPA given in favour of accused No.1 to sell the property is not absolute and it is conditional. The copy of the GPA is filed by respondent No.2 through counter. Clause No.4 of the GPA is as follows: “To execute sale deed or deeds or gift as the case may be in favour of the persons whose name have been nominated by the M/s.Country Club (India) Ltd., in whose favour residential plots have been allotted by M/s. Country Club (India) Ltd., or M/s. Country Condos Ltd., of us as the case may be and submit the document for registration on behalf of us as its power of attorney on our behalf attorney to do the following things, acts, deeds and what so ever on behalf of us. AND in general to do any acts, deeds and things required for all or any of the purposes aforesaid as fully and effectively if we could do it.” 9. On going through the above averments mentioned in para 4 of the GPA bearing document No. BK-IV 7/2011 dated 16.03.2011 given to accused No.1 to execute sale deed in favour of person subject to nomination given by Country Club, which means that unless Country Club gives a nomination in favour of the petitioner-accused No.2, accused No.1 is not expected to execute the sale deed. The petitioner-accused No.2 is conscious about this clause. The petitioner-accused No.2 is conscious about this clause. In the petition seeking quashment of FIR, it is specifically mentioned by her at Para No.8 Page 3 that accused No.1 has obtained consent letter from the Country Club to sell the land and executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner-accused No.2. So, according to the petitioner-accused No.2, the conditions stipulated in the GPA have been complied with. However, the petitioner-accused No.2 did not choose to file that document before this Court. Similarly, as observed above, the petitioner-accused No.2 also can file copy of the sale deed to see as to whether there is any clause in the sale deed that accused No.1 has been selling the land to the petitioner-accused No.2 on the authority of GPA and after getting the nomination from M/s. Country Club (India) Limited. So, if M/s. Country Club (India) Limited has not given nomination, accused No.1 has no right to sell and thereby entire transaction may become void. Therefore, as long as there is no document through which M/s. Country Club (India) Limited nominated the petitioner-accused No.2 to purchase the property and unless original of document through which the petitioner-accused No.2 has purchased the property, it is not possible for this Court to appreciate whatever the petitioner has been alleging. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that respondent No.2 has tried to convert the civil dispute into criminal one. In most of the civil cases, there is a tendency of filing the complaints before the Police or the Court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and file criminal cases in order to arm-twist and put pressure on one of the parties. An act or omission, can be civil wrong and it can also be an offence. Some times it can only be a civil wrong where remedy lies in civil court. Some times it cannot be civil wrong which is to be dealt by the criminal courts exclusively. There is no standard rule that if there is a civil dispute or if a case is filed in civil court, consequently criminal case shall not be entertained. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. Some times it cannot be civil wrong which is to be dealt by the criminal courts exclusively. There is no standard rule that if there is a civil dispute or if a case is filed in civil court, consequently criminal case shall not be entertained. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. In the case on hand, the allegation is that accused No.1 who is supposed to sell the property belonging to respondent No.2 with the power of GPA only on authorisation from the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited has allegedly sold the property in favour of the petitioner-accused No.2 without authority, consent or knowledge of respondent No.2, more particularly without nomination being done by the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited as per the GPA. It is also clearly alleged by respondent No.2 that petitioner – accused No.2 and accused No.1 have conspired in order to cause wrongful loss to respondent No.2 in terms of money and fraudulently transferred property in favour of the petitioner-accused No.2. 12. Another angle in this case is that the respondent No.2 has purchased huge property in all to an extent of Ac.5.37 guntas in various survey numbers from various persons and respondent No.2 has converted the said land into housing plots and after dealing with M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, respondent No.2 has agreed to sell the same through registered sale deeds in small portions of land i.e., individual plots to different individuals on getting the nomination from the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited. So, the job of accused No.1 being GPA holder is to sell plots having small extents of land to different individuals after getting nomination from M/s. Country Club (India) Limited. 13. However, contrary to that, according to the respondent No.2, huge junk of land to an extent of Ac.5.37 guntas has been sold by accused no.1 in favour of petitioner – accused No.2. The petitioner has filed copy of plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon along with Form – VIII showing valuation of the property. In the valuation of the property, the extent is sown as Ac.5.37 guntas. Though the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the sale deed through which she has purchased the property from accused No.1, it appears that basing on Form – VIII, she has purchased Ac.5.37 guntas. In the valuation of the property, the extent is sown as Ac.5.37 guntas. Though the petitioner has not enclosed the copy of the sale deed through which she has purchased the property from accused No.1, it appears that basing on Form – VIII, she has purchased Ac.5.37 guntas. If really she has purchased Ac.5.37 guntas, it appears that it is contrary to the very GPA, where small pieces of plots of land is to be sold to different individuals. So, on account of sale of this entire land, respondent No.2 left with no property. Therefore, it clearly sounds some negative intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 and accused No.1. In case, if really there is no authorization as alleged by respondent No.2, the petitioner-accused No.2 should have refused to purchase the property because the GPA specifically speaks that unless there is authorization from the M/s. Country Club (India) Limited, accused No.1 has no power to sell the land. 14. The petitioner has filed copy of the plaint in O.S.No.61 of 2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, wherein respondent No.2 has filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed against accused Nos.1 and 2. By way of filing the said sale deed, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the matter is ceased by the Civil Court and thus, this Court cannot go ahead of the criminal case. So far as this contention is concerned, as discussed above, even though civil case is pending between the parties, if the de-facto complainant makes out any allegations against the accused that there is an element of criminality, then certainly the case should be allowed to be investigated by the Police. 15. Above all, as discussed above, prima-facie there are clear allegations against the petitioner and accused No.1 as well that both of hem have clandestinely and fraudulently against the terms of GPA conspired together and in pursuance of such conspiracy accused No.1 has executed sale deed in favour of petitioner-accused No.2. 15. Above all, as discussed above, prima-facie there are clear allegations against the petitioner and accused No.1 as well that both of hem have clandestinely and fraudulently against the terms of GPA conspired together and in pursuance of such conspiracy accused No.1 has executed sale deed in favour of petitioner-accused No.2. As discussed above, the petitioner has not filed copy of the sale deed through which accused No.1 has sold the property in favour of petitioner-accused No.2 and also not filed the alleged consent letter given by M/s. Country Club (India) Limited nominating petitioner-accused No.2 as the person to whom accused No.1 is expected to transfer the property. So, unless those two documents are available and unless the statements of witnesses are recorded including the statement of respondent No.2, things are not clear as to whether really the offence was committed by the petitioner–accused No.2 and accused No.1. 16. In order to quash the FIR, the Courts are required to be very cautious because there is a danger in case if FIR is quashed summarily basing on the complaint only. On the face of FIR, if it is found that even if all the contents of complaint are accepted to be true and if offence is not made out, then certainly the Court can consider the plea of accused to quash the FIR. Whatever the petitioned-accused No.2 is trying to convince this Court, by filing this petition is contents of complaint are incorrect. The High Court while considering the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot conduct mini trial and give a finding as to whether any offence is committed or not. 17. Furthermore, in a case like this, if charge sheet is fled and if the petitioner is challenging the charge sheet, this Court will have some more material viz., statements of witnesses, copy of consent letter allegedly obtained by accused No.1 from M/s. Country Club (India) Limited to see whether any offence is committed by the petitioner or not. Basing on the complaint alone, the petitioner-accused No.2 hurriedly approached the Court seeking quashment of the FIR. Unless, the Court comes to the conclusion that prima-facie there is no material against accused No.2, this Court is not supposed to quash the FIR. 18. Basing on the complaint alone, the petitioner-accused No.2 hurriedly approached the Court seeking quashment of the FIR. Unless, the Court comes to the conclusion that prima-facie there is no material against accused No.2, this Court is not supposed to quash the FIR. 18. Considering the above discussion, this Court is of the firm opinion that there are allegations against the petitioner-accused No.2, which require further probe and investigation and without there being any investigation, at this preliminary stage, this Court cannot record a finding that the petitioner-accused No.2 has not committed any offence. 19. In case, if investigation is done, may be Police will give clear chit to the petitioner that she has not committed any offence and may be the Police would file charge sheet with more strong evidence to show that the petitioner has committed offence. Therefore, investigating agency shall be permitted to continue the investigation and in case if petitioner-accused No.2 feels that investigation is not on proper lines, then certainly petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the charge sheet under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 20. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, in case, if Police files charge sheet, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the charge sheet, in case, if she so desires. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.