Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 600 (TS)

Ravi Tirumala Diwakar v. State of Telangana

2022-09-16

D.NAGARJUN

body2022
ORDER : This petition is filed seeking quashment of charge sheet against the petitioner/A3 cognizance of which was taken against him and other accused for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under: a. The de-facto complainant and his brother are the owners of land to an extent of 853 square yards situated in Sy.No.42 situated at Surya Nagar Colony. They entered into development agreement with A1wherein both the parties have agreed to develop the said land into 20 flats of which A1 being developer agreed to take 12 flats towards 60% of his share, whereas the de-facto complainant would get 8 flats towards 40% of his share. Permission was taken from the municipality and construction was also started and was in progress. During the pendency of the construction, A1 had an agreement with Dr.G. Sukhdev/A2 in respect of construction of flats in the site belonging to the de-facto complainant and to that extent registered partnership deed was also executed between them on 20.06.2008. The de-facto complainant is not aware of it, as A1 continued to supervise the construction. b. A1 has approached the de-facto complainant stating that there is financial crunch and requested to sell few flats, which fell to his share i.e., builder share out of 60%. Accordingly, the de-facto complainant has executed sale deeds of flat Nos.301 to 304 to one Ravi Tirumala Divakar. At the time of registration, the details of the petitioner/A3 were not given to the de-facto complainant, but later he came to know that A3 is no other than the son in law of A2/Dr. Sukdhev. A2 subsequently has sold the flats Nos.301 to 304 with higher price with huge margins to other parties. A3/petitioner has indulged in cheating and fraud by converting agreement of sale ?cum- general power of attorney in respect of flat No.401, 402 into sale deeds without knowledge and intimation to the de-facto complainant and later sold to the third parties for higher price. c. A1 again with a mala fide intention requested to mortgage flat Nos.101 and 102 for paying labour charges. Accordingly, the de-facto complainant has executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of one Vivekananda Yadav and Arjun Yadav who are financiers of A1. The money A1 has taken from Vivekananda Yadav and Arjun Yadav has been used for his personal purposes. c. A1 again with a mala fide intention requested to mortgage flat Nos.101 and 102 for paying labour charges. Accordingly, the de-facto complainant has executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in favour of one Vivekananda Yadav and Arjun Yadav who are financiers of A1. The money A1 has taken from Vivekananda Yadav and Arjun Yadav has been used for his personal purposes. d. Again A1 approached the de-facto complainant and requested to sell Flat No.403 and 404 out of his 60% share to Mohan/A4 and Sridhar Reddy/A5. The de-facto complainant has executed agreement of sale-cum-GPA in their favour, both of them in turn sold these flats for higher price. Flat Nos.204 and 404 were sold in favour of A3. Flat No.403 was sold to Jayaram Raj. Subsequently, A3 sold flat Nos.204 and 404 for higher profit margin. 3. After registering FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 420, 406, 467, 120B, 384 IPC read with 34 IPC, police completed the investigation and filed final report stating that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. 4. Aggrieved by the same, the de-facto complainant has filed a protest petition almost reiterating the contents of the complaint, cognizance of which has been taken by learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabd, Medchal and numbered as C.C.No.358 of 2017. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.358 of 2017 can be quashed? 7. As seen from the copies of the registered sale deed executed by the de-facto complainant in respect of flat Nos.301 to 304, it is clear that those sale deeds were executed on receipt of entire sale consideration of Rs.11,50,000/-. Therefore, once the de-facto complainant has executed a registered sale deed and the petitioner/A3 has purchased the flats by paying the valid sale consideration, respondent No.2 can not question the same. 8. The grievance of the de-facto complainant is that though the petitioner/A3 has purchased for less price, he has subsequently sold the flats to other with higher margins. Once the petitioner/A3 has become the owner of the flats, he was at liberty to sell the flats for whatever price they feel mutually agreeable to the petitioner and the purchaser. Respondent No.2 cannot question the same. 9. Once the petitioner/A3 has become the owner of the flats, he was at liberty to sell the flats for whatever price they feel mutually agreeable to the petitioner and the purchaser. Respondent No.2 cannot question the same. 9. Another important aspect is the flats which were sold in favour of the petitioner/A3 are not the flats which fell to the share of the de-facto complainant. Even according to the contents of the complaint he has agreed to give 12 flats to the builder/A1 towards his agreed 60% share. As per the averments of the complaint, A1 came and requested to execute sale deed in respect of four flats in favour of the petitioner out of his share of 12 flats and accordingly, he has done that. Therefore, once the de-facto complainant has sold the flats which admittedly fell to the share of A1/builder, the de-facto complainant shall not have any grievance in respect of the said transaction. 10. If at all there is any grievance in respect of the sale of the flats in favour of the petitioner/A3 it is purely a civil nature, as police have concluded in the course of investigation. Therefore, this is case where the de-facto complainant tried to convert the civil dispute in respect of the petitioner/A3 into a criminal one. 11. Considering the circumstances, the petitioner/A3 has made out a case that the case against him is liable to be quashed. 12. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.358 of 2017 on the file of XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.