Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 769 (TS)

Adulla Ashok Vardhan Reddy v. State of Telangana

2024-09-20

K.SUJANA

body2024
ORDER : This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated 13.07.2023 against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 passed in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, confirming the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 447, 463, 464, 471, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition before the trial Court, vide Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2022, under Section 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned XXVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam. In the first instance, the petitioners filed a petition, vide Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019, under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge them stating that initially the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 only, thereafter, the Police filed additional charge sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8. When the complaint was given by respondent No.2/de facto complainant, she mentioned about the pendency of the suit i.e., O.S.No.60 of 2015 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, wherein the petitioners were defendants in the said suit. At the time of filing of charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6, the Police were aware about the gift settlement deed which was executed in favour of the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8. It is further stated that without any statement given by respondent No.2, the Police filed a supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners stating that Investigating Officer came to know about the execution of gift settlement deed in their favour after filing of the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6. 3. It is further stated that there is no evidence to prove the charges of either cheating or receipt of wrongful gain from the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8, and there is no intention on the part of the petitioners to deceive any one as they did not alienate the property after execution of registered Gift Settlement Deed in their favour. 3. It is further stated that there is no evidence to prove the charges of either cheating or receipt of wrongful gain from the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8, and there is no intention on the part of the petitioners to deceive any one as they did not alienate the property after execution of registered Gift Settlement Deed in their favour. It is further stated that the petitioners did not involve in any transaction with accused Nos.1 to 6, and they never conspired with other accused. 4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 stating that the petitioners were defendants in the suit, vide O.S.No.60 of 2015, but the fact that execution of registered sale deed Nos.396 and 397 of 2014 were not mentioned in the complaint. It is a matter of record that charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 on 31.01.2019, and the said registered sale deeds were filed by respondent No.2 before the Investigating Officer on 14.07.2019. After verification of the said registered sale deeds, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the petitioners stating that the petitioners were trespassed into the subject property with an intention to grab the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No.42 of 2022 and the same was also dismissed by the revision Court on 13.07.2023 confirming the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022. Hence, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition. 5. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri H. Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.159 and 160 of Thakkallapally Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He further submitted that prior to the death of the husband of respondent No.2, the family of respondent No.2 was residing in Hyderabad and the said land was kept vacant. Taking advantage of the said fact, the husband of accused No.1, who is working in revenue department created a fake documents and sold the said land to petitioner No.1/accused No.7 under registered sale deed. Taking advantage of the said fact, the husband of accused No.1, who is working in revenue department created a fake documents and sold the said land to petitioner No.1/accused No.7 under registered sale deed. He further submitted that all the accused with an intention to grab the subject land, created fake sale deed in the names of the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the remedy for recovery of possession is to approach the civil Court, but not the criminal Court by filing false case. Further, there are two civil suits pending between the parties i.e., O.S.No.5 of 1985 and O.S.No.60 of 2015. The vendors of respondent No.2 purchased the agricultural land in Sy.Nos.159 and 160 through unregistered sale deeds and their names were recorded in pahanies and defendant No.7/petitioner No.1/accused No.7 in O.S.No.60 of 2015 acquired the land in Sy.No.160 to an extent of Ac.5.16 guntas through registered sale deed, as such, petitioner No.1/accused No.7 became the absolute owner and possessor of the said land. Thereafter, the name of petitioner No.1/accused No.7 was recorded in the pahanies from 2006 i.e., after execution of registered sale deeds and issuance pattadar passbooks. Therefore, there is no role of the petitioners and the allegations leveled against them do not constitute any offence, as the matter is purely civil in nature and prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them. 8. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another vs. Sudha Seetharam and another, (2019) 16 Supreme Court Cases 739, where in paragraph No.29, it is held as under: “29. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the date of filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal code. An attempt has been made by the first respondents to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal code. An attempt has been made by the first respondents to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.” 9. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Y Jose and Another vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 78, wherein in paragraph No.21 to 23 and 28, it is held as follows: “21. There exists a distinction between pure contractual dispute of a civil nature and an offence of cheating. Although breach of contract pler se would not come in the way of initiation of a criminal proceedings, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of an offence can be found out, the court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. We may reiterate that one of the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Penal Code is existence of an (sic fraudulent or dishonest) intention of making initial promise or existence thereof from the very beginning of formation of contract. 23. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent power of the Court. It serves a salutary purpose viz., a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years although no case has been made out against him. 28. A matter which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence, the latter being not a short cut of executing a decree which is non-existent. The superior courts, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of court. It has a duty in terms of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to supervise the functionings of the trial courts.” 10. The superior courts, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of court. It has a duty in terms of Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to supervise the functionings of the trial courts.” 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that the Court has to see whether there is any prima facie case made out or not, basing on the final report and other statements. But the record available before the trial Court discloses the offences against the petitioners and as such, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition for discharge of the petitioners. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the trial Court or the appellate Court and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 11. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the petitioners are the son and the daughter in law of accused No.1 and they are part of the subject property. Further, the subject property was transferred in the name of the petitioners, which shows that the petitioners have subsequently entered into the property. The allegations are mainly against accused No.1, whereas, the petitioners are the beneficiaries to the said property. The allegations leveled against the petitioners under Sections 420, 423, 447, 463, 464, 471, 506 and 120 (b) read with 34 of IPC do not constitute any offence as they are against accused No.2, who played fraud and cheated respondent No.2 by creating fake documents. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioners got registered gift settlement deed in their favour, when accused No.1 filed written statement in O.S.No.60 of 2015 i.e., three years before filing of the complaint. Therefore, the petitioners did not trespass into the subject property. 12. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, respondent No.2 filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against the petitioners and the other accused and the same is pending. Further, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint against the petitioners and the other accused twelve years after the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the date of filing of the suit. Further, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint against the petitioners and the other accused twelve years after the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the date of filing of the suit. Mere transfer of the property in the name of petitioners does not constitute the offence. Further, if the averments in the complaint, read on its face, they do not disclose the ingredients that are necessary to constitute the offences under Sections 420, 423, 447, 463, 464, 471, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. It is nothing but an attempt to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the necessary ingredients to constitute a criminal offence. Therefore, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners does not constitute any offence and the same is liable to be quashed by discharging them from the case. 13. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned V Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar by discharging the petitioners from the alleged offences against them. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.