Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1285 (TS)

G. Gopal Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-10-25

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. Criminal Petition No.11658 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.11717 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.169 of 2017 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 1.1. As the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, both the criminal petitions are clubbed together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Heard Mr.Mohd. Gulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Gajanand Chakravarthy, learned counsel, representing Mr.Mohd. Ayub, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 3. Brief facts of the case: 3.1. The de facto complainant, Mr. Sayeed Bin Awad Bamiqdad, is the absolute owner and possessor of House No. 3-5-786/23, admeasuring about 270 square yards, situated at Shergate, King Koti, Hyderabad, by virtue of a Registered Gift Settlement Deed Document No. 2167/2007, dated 28.07.2007. In 2007, he, along with eight other owners, entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 29.11.2007 with Sri G. Gopal Reddy, Managing Director of M/s Value Tech Engineering Services Private Limited, for construction of a residential complex (“Precision Towers”) with agreed ownership of 42.5% built-up area to owners and 57.5% to the builder. The builder was required to complete construction within 24 months including grace period of 3 months but delayed the project by nearly 10 years, completing it only in 2017, and failed to hand over the complainant’s rightful share. Flat Nos. 101 and 401 with two car parking places and terrace rights, and also failed to provide the agreed main entrance through the Apollo Hospital Road. Further, the builder, in collusion with mediator Hyder Masqati @ Nawab, retained the complainant’s original link documents and allegedly misused them to create forged and fabricated property documents, including a false Gift Settlement Deed (Doc. No. 1407/2009) in respect of a non-existing property No. 3-5-786/23 (Part), thereby encroaching upon the complainant’s and Government land. Despite complaints to the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2013, the documents were not returned. No. 1407/2009) in respect of a non-existing property No. 3-5-786/23 (Part), thereby encroaching upon the complainant’s and Government land. Despite complaints to the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2013, the documents were not returned. The builder, mediator, and the complainant’s brothers, Hussain Bin Awad and Abbu Bakkar Bin Awad, further colluded to prepare a forged Partition Deed dated 07.04.2014, falsely claiming that the complainant had orally gifted the said flats to family members, based on which, Flat No. 101 was later sold to B. Rooparani under Sale Deed Document No. 1266/2017. The complainant asserts that he never executed any such Gift or Partition Deeds and seeks legal action against the builder, mediator, and family members for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and misuse of documents, and for restoration of his lawful property rights. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the aforesaid offences. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that respondent No.2 executed Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Receipt on 21.05.2014. Pursuant to the same, accused No.1 has already handed over the possession of the Flats to accused Nos.3 and 4, who are own brothers of respondent No.2, and there is no dishonest intention on his part. Especially pursuant to the understanding between the family members of respondent No.2, accused No.1 handed over the possession of the Flats to his family members. 4.2 He further submitted that accused No.1 is not a party in any of the document i.e., Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum- Receipt, dated 21.05.2014 and Partition Deed, dated 04.04.2017. The entire allegations levelled by the respondent No.2 against his brothers that they forged the Partition Deed, subsequently executed the Sale Deed vide Document bearing No.1266 of 2017, dated 10.04.2017 and that those documents are forged and fabricated. Hence, the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC do not attract against the petitioners. 4.3 He also submitted that respondent No.2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.348 of 2018 seeking to declare the Partition Deed, dated 07.04.2017, and Registered Sale Deed, dated 10.04.2017, as null and void and not binding upon him and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, mesne profits and for perpetual injunction. 4.3 He also submitted that respondent No.2 has filed a suit in O.S.No.348 of 2018 seeking to declare the Partition Deed, dated 07.04.2017, and Registered Sale Deed, dated 10.04.2017, as null and void and not binding upon him and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, mesne profits and for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, accused No.1’s firm namely M/s. Value Tech Engineering Services Private Limited represented by its Managing Director namely G.Gopal Reddy was made as party defendant No.1. The nature of allegations made in the present complaint are purely civil in nature, and a comprehensive civil suit filed by respondent No.2 is pending before the Civil Court on the very same allegations. Hence, continuation of the proceedings in Crime No.169 of 2017 is abuse of process of law. 4.4 He further submitted that as per the Development Agreement, dated 29.11.2007, there is a specific clause enumerated in the said agreement that any dispute arises between the parties, it shall be dissolved by way of arbitration. Respondent No.2 without invoking the said clause for seeking reference to the arbitration, filed the present complaint and the same is contrary to the Development Agreement. 4.5 He further submitted that one Jaffar Bin Mohammed Bajrai filed complaint on 03.01.2023. Based on the same, Crime No.4 of 2023 was registered and the Investigation Officer after conducting investigation filed a final report stating that the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The allegations made in the present complaint are also civil in nature. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is clear abuse of the process of law. 4.6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha , (1982) 1 SCC 561 . 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2: 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is owner and possessor of the premises i.e. House bearing No.3-5-786/23, admeasuring 270 square yards situated at Shergate, King Koti, Hyderabad and the same was acquired through Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing No.2167 of 2007, dated 28.07.2007, executed by his mother Smt.Abbasi Begum. Respondent No.2 and his neighbouring flat owners have decided to club their properties altogether for development and accordingly, entered into Development Agreement-cum-Registered General Power of Attorney with accused No.1, who failed to comply with the conditions of the Development Agreement. As per the said Development Agreement, respondent No.2 is entitled to his share. However, accused No.1 in collusion with respondent No.2 brothers have brought into existence of a Partition Deed alleging that respondent No.2 had orally gifted the Flat Nos.101 and 401 to his mother and brothers. Basing on the void and fabricated Partition Deed, his brother Abbu Bakkar Bin Awad Bamiqdad sold Flat No.101 to one B.Rooparani. 5.2 He further submitted that respondent No.2 has not executed any Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Receipt on 21.05.2014 and his signatures were forged and the said document was created for the purpose of claiming his share in respect of Flat Nos.101 and 401 and the accused have cheated respondent No.2 and the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC attracts against the accused. Mere pendency of a civil suit is not a ground for seeking to quash the FIR, especially based on the grounds, which are pleaded by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the criminal petitions and the real truth will come out during the course of investigation and therefore, both the criminal petitions are liable to be dismissed. Analysis: 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 being the Managing Director of M/s. Value Tech Engineering Services Private Limited and respondent No.2 and others have entered into Development Agreement-cum-Registered General Power of Attorney vide document No.3732/2007, dated 29.11.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the said Development Agreement, respondent No.2 and others have given their properties namely House bearing Nos.3-5-786/18, 3-5- 786/19/A, 3-5-786/19/4, 3-5-786/19, 3-5-786/23 and a portion of House No. 3-5-786/18, total admeasuring 2345.49 square yards situated at Shergate, Kingkoti, Hyderabad, for the purpose of construction of residential flats. The first party of the said Agreement is entitled for 42½ % share and second party/builder is entitled for 57½ % share. The first party of the said Agreement is entitled for 42½ % share and second party/builder is entitled for 57½ % share. Respondent No.2 filed complaint on 01.11.2017, wherein it was stated that he is absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.3-5-786/23 admeasuring 270 square yards and the same was acquired through Gift Settlement Deed, dated 28.07.2007, from his mother and the de facto complainant along with others have entered into the above said Development Agreement in favor of accused No.1. However, accused No.1 failed to complete the construction within the stipulated time and accused No.1 has not handed over his share. On the other hand, basing upon the forged and fabricated document, Flat Nos.101 and 401 were handed over to his family members. Respondent No.2 specifically mentioned in the complaint that he has not executed the Partition Deed, dated 07.04.2017. Respondent No.2 came to know about the illegal transaction after receiving the summons in the suit in O.S. No.485 of 2012, on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Whereas the case of accused No.1 is that he handed over the Flats pursuant to the Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum- Receipt executed by respondent No.2, dated 21.05.2014, and accused Nos.1 and 2 are not the parties in any of the documents and they have not created or fabricated any document. Hence, the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC are not attracted is concerned, respondent No.2 specifically denied the execution of Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Receipt and claimed it to be a fabricated one. 7. In the complaint, there are specific allegations levelled against accused Nos.1 and 2 that accused Nos.3 to 5 have created and fabricated documents and in collusion with them, accused No.1 handed over the Flats in respect of his share to other accused, without his consent and with the intention of defeating his legitimate right and share in the property. It is not in dispute that as per the Development Agreement, respondent No.2 is entitled his share. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 specifically stated in the complaint that he had not executed the Partition Deed including Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Receipt, which are created and fabricated. Whether the allegations made by respondent No.2 are true or not, is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. 8. The record further reveals that respondent No.2 specifically stated in the complaint that he had not executed the Partition Deed including Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Receipt, which are created and fabricated. Whether the allegations made by respondent No.2 are true or not, is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be revealed during the course of investigation. 8. Insofar as the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 had already initiated civil proceedings by filing a suit in O.S.No.348 of 2018, on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same is pending and continuation of criminal proceedings is abuse of the process of law are concerned, respondent No.2 filed complaint on 01.11.2017 and thereafter filed civil suit. It is trite law that mere pendency of the civil suit is not a ground to seek quashing of the crime, especially when both are different and distinct. 9. It is relevant to mention that in K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. , (2020) 14 SCC 552 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. , (2002)1 SCC 555 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal , (1999) 8 SCC 686 , to reiterate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a “civil profile” does not strip the act of its “criminal outfit.” Similarly in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the same principle, stating that civil and criminal proceedings may, in law, proceed simultaneously, a criminal prosecution can be sustained only where there is a clear presence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction. 10. 10. In Swapan Kumar Guha supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the power to investigate under Section 157 Cr.P.C. arises only when the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The Court observed that the police have no unfettered discretion to commence investigation and that an FIR which fails to disclose the essential ingredients of an offence cannot form the basis for lawful investigation. The judgment emphasized that unnecessary investigation or prosecution where no offence is disclosed amounts to harassment and abuse of process. Applying this principle, it was held that the FIR in that case did not allege the essential elements of the penal provision, warranting quashing of the proceedings. This precedent thus underscores that, while the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be sparingly exercised, it can be invoked where even a plain reading of the complaint fails to disclose any cognizable offence or criminal intent at the inception of the transaction. 11. It is trite law that the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the First Information Report is to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, and only in the rarest of rare cases, where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 issued a note of caution that such extraordinary power cannot be invoked to stifle a legitimate investigation or to embark upon an inquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. An FIR is not required to be an encyclopaedia of all facts relating to the alleged offence. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The law does not require that all the ingredients of the offence must be spelled out in the FIR. It is only intended to set the criminal law in motion and to enable the investigating agency to collect material to ascertain the truth of the allegations. The law does not require that all the ingredients of the offence must be spelled out in the FIR. As observed in Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) , (1999) 3 SCC 259 the absence of detailed particulars or one or two ingredients does not justify quashing at the threshold if a factual foundation for the alleged offence exists. 12. In Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat , (2017) 9 SCC 641 , the Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the power to quash an FIR must be exercised only to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of court, and not to thwart a lawful investigation, particularly where the allegations disclose serious offences such as cheating, forgery, or criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 , 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Where, as in the present case, the investigation is still at a beginning stage, it would be premature and contrary to settled law to quash the FIR. The investigating agency must be permitted to complete the investigation and place the materials before the competent Court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Interference at this stage would amount to a premature evaluation of the evidence and an encroachment upon the statutory function of the police. Unless the case falls within the exceptional categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal (supra), the FIR cannot be quashed merely because the accused asserts innocence or characterizes the dispute as civil in nature. 13. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court supra, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in Crime No.169 of 2017 against the accused Nos.1 and 2. However, since the offence leveled against the accused Nos.1 and 2 is punishable with an imprisonment up to seven years, the Investigation Officer ought to have follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./ Section 35 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’) and the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 14. State of Bihar , (2014) 8 SCC 273 . 14. Accordingly, the Investigation Officer is directed to conduct the investigation strictly following the procedure as contemplated under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./ Section 35 (3) of BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar supra. It is needless to mention that accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to submit their statements by raising all the pleas before the Investigation Officer by enclosing all the documents, which are in their custody. 15. With the above said directions, both the Criminal Petitions are disposed of. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these petitions stand closed.