Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 206 (TS)

Mulla Kishore v. State of Telangana

2025-04-01

J.SREENIVAS RAO

body2025
ORDER : J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. Since these criminal petitions are arising out of Crime No.50 of 2025, these criminal petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 and 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.3917 of 2025, petitioner/accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.3902 of 2025 and petitioner/accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.3921 of 2025 in Crime No.50 of 2025 on the file of P.S.Konijerla, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 322, 329(4), 338 and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’). 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.02.2025 at about 22:00 hours, the SHO, P.S.Konijerla, received a written complaint about the incidents occurred in between 28.12.2024 at 08.00 PM to 29.12.2024 at 03.00 AM at Sub-Registrar Office, Wyra, reported on 25.02.2025 at 22.00 hrs by the respondent No.2, Managing Director of Indo-Qatar Projects Pvt. Ltd., Khammam, stating that accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the Partners in Greenlands Developers, made a scam by transferring some immovable properties, by creating 64 false and fake registrations, which are under the bank mortgage, and cheated the original land owners with the instigation of Sub-Registrar Office, Wyra. In the said registered documents, accused No.4 stood with the form 32-A on behalf of the beneficiaries of said 64 false and fake registrations and he transferred an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- from Greenlands developers bank account and accused Nos.5 and 6 signed as witnesses on all of the 64 documents. On 29.12.2024 at 11.50 AM, accused Nos.1 to 3 trespassed into the respondent No.2 office along with accused No.7 and 60 anti social elements and accused No.7 removed the hard disk, NVR, DVR of CC cameras and took them away, accused Nos.8 and 9, who are the employees of accused No.1, regularly coming to the respondent No.2 office since 01.01.2025 and threatened him with dire consequences by saying that they are acting as per the orders of police. Thus, take action against the accused persons. Basing on the same, Crime No.50 of 2025 was registered. 4. Heard Mr.C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.V.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Thus, take action against the accused persons. Basing on the same, Crime No.50 of 2025 was registered. 4. Heard Mr.C.Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.V.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 – State and Mr.Tarun Ram Aitham, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed the offence and they were falsely implicated in the above crime. He further submitted that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 25.02.2025 with false allegations to settle the civil disputes. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 to 3 are the partners of M/s Green Land Developers, Khammam and the same was registered under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the said partnership dealing with real estate and construction business. He further submitted that accused No. 1 to 3 are the owners of land to an extent of Ac.91.15¼ gts, out of the said extent they have given 39.29 gts. in Sy.Nos.312 of Konijerla revenue village, in Sy.Nos.90/A2, 90/D/1, 90/A/6, 90/C/2, 90/C/3, 92/B/A, 92/D/3, 92/E, 92/D/2, 91/A, 92/D/1, 92/B, 92/F/A, 92/B, 92/F/E of Lingagudem revenue village and in Sy.Nos.94/A, 95/A, 95/E, 96/AA, 97/A, 98/AA, 105/E/1, 95/E, 96/E, 97/A, 98/A, 96/A, 97/E, 96/A, 105/E, 105/EE, 105/VU, 105/VUI, 105/VU2, 98/EE, 98/VU, 98/E of Ammapalem Revenue Village situated at Konijerla mandal, Khammam District, in favour of INDO QATAR PROJECTS PVT LTD., rep by its Promotor and Managing Director Giri Polisetty/respondent No.2 and entered into registered development agreement cum General Power of Attorney on 20.05.2015, for construction of duplex villas. However, as per the said development agreement, respondent No.2 has not made any construction of villas in respect of shares allotted to the petitioners and accused Nos.1 to 3. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has made construction of the villas in respect of his share and alienated the same to the third parties/purchasers. At that stage, Accused No. 1 to 3 alienated and executed registered sale deeds in favour of purchasers in respect of their shares which were allotted as per the development agreement. 5.1. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has made construction of the villas in respect of his share and alienated the same to the third parties/purchasers. At that stage, Accused No. 1 to 3 alienated and executed registered sale deeds in favour of purchasers in respect of their shares which were allotted as per the development agreement. 5.1. He further submitted that as per Clause 3 of above said development agreement, the petitioners are entitled to enter into the sale agreement with third parties for their respective allotment villas and to register the same in the concerned registered offices by taking sale consideration amounts at their discretion. The petitioners executed the sale deeds in respect of their property which were allotted as per the said development agreement. The petitioners have not forged or fabricated the documents. Hence, the ingredients of Section 338 of BNS are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5.2. He further submitted that the purchasers, who purchased the property from the petitioners, have not made any complaint against them and respondent No.2 is not entitled lodge complaint against them. As soon as petitioners came to know about the error which was committed by them while executing sale deeds in favour of purchasers, they have addressed letters to Sub-Registrar Officer, Wyra, for rectification of documents. When the Sub-Registrar failed to rectify the same, petitioners have approached the competent Civil Court and filed suits in O.S.Nos.158, 159 and 160 of 2025, for execution of rectification deeds by deleting the scheduled property in the registered sale deeds and the said suits are pending and the defendants therein also have not lodged any complaint against petitioners. He further submitted that respondent No.2 himself approached this Court and filed W.P.No.37070 of 2024, seeking to declare the action of official respondents in interfering with the civil disputes and arbitration proceedings as illegal. 5.3. Even according to the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the complaint, the nature of disputes is civil in nature between petitioners and respondent No.2. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioners prayed for grant of Anticipatory bail. 5.4. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also the conditions which are going to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioners prayed for grant of Anticipatory bail. 5.4. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and high Court of Kerala, which are as under: 1. Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2009) 8 SCC 751 2. Jit Vinayak Arolkar v. State of Goa and others , [2024 SCC Online Ker 861] and 3. Premchand R.Nair and others v. Integrated Housing Developers Limited, Rep. by its Former Regional Manager and Authorised Representative, Mr.Mahesh and another , [Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2024] 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that respondent No.2 is the partner of M/s Greenland Developers, Khammam, and he is holding the share of 40% in the said company. He further submitted that the petitioners along with other accused committed grave offence and executed fake registrations and fabricated the documents worth of Rs.2,00,00,000/-. He further submitted that the petitioners have committed the offence on 28.12.2024 and they trespassed into the office of respondent No.2 on 29.12.2024 along with 60 anti social elements and removed the hard disk, NVE, DVR of CC cameras and took them away and also warned the respondent No.2 with dire consequences. The investigation is under progress and at this stage, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every chance to interfere with the investigation and also influence the witnesses. Hence, prayed to dismiss the criminal petitions. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that as per the development agreement dated 23.03.2021, respondent No.2 has to deliver the possession of independent villas to the M/s Greenland Developers within a period of 24 months with 6 months gross period from the date of obtaining permission for the first villa of the B scheduled property, failing which respondent No.2 has to pay rent @ Rs.5,000/- per month per villa until completion of land lords allotted villas. He further submitted that as per Clause 10 of the said development agreement, the first party namely M/s.Greenland Developers, petitioners, who are the partners of the said Firm, agrees and undertakes not to sell, dispossess or alienate or enter into the agreement in respect of the allotted shares/plots of the developer belonging to the respondent No.2 with the third parties. He further submitted that petitioners and other accused, contrary to the terms and agreements of development agreement alienated the property and executed fabricated documents to third parties behind his back. He further submitted that subsequent to lodging of present complaint, petitioners filed civil suits for rectification of the registered sale deeds. He further submitted that petitioners have also committed the offence and they forcibly entered into office of respondent No.2 along with other accused and 60 anti social elements and damaged the furniture of the office and also removed the hard disk, NVR, DVR of CC cameras and took them away and warned respondent No.2 with dire consequences. 7.1. He further submitted that even according to the averments made by the petitioners, if respondent No.2 has not constructed villas in the property which were allotted in favour of petitioners as per the terms and conditions of development agreement, petitioners ought to have initiated the proceedings under Clause 7, seeking to dissolve the dispute by way of arbitration and petitioners without initiating any proceedings, created forged and fabricated documents and alienated the property, especially the property which was allotted in favour of respondent No.2. He also submitted that petitioners alienated the ‘C’ scheduled property which was allotted to the share of respondent No.2 and the investigation is under progress. There are specific allegations against the petitioners, and they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail they will interfere with the investigation and also influence the witnesses. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that petitioner/accused No.1 namely Makkena Ramu and Ponnam Venkateswarlu have entered into Development Agreement-cum- Irrevocable General Power of Attorney with respondent No.2, who is Promoter and Managing Director of INDO QATAR PROJECTS PVT LTD., vide Registered Document bearing No.1106 of 2021, dated 23.03.2021. Pursuant to the above said Development Agreement, the petitioners have given an extent of Ac.39.29 gts. Pursuant to the above said Development Agreement, the petitioners have given an extent of Ac.39.29 gts. of land in favour of respondent No.2 for development and construction of villas. In the said agreement, the entire property for development was shown as A-Schedule property, Land owners’ property was shown as B-Schedule property and Developer’s property was shown as C-Schedule property. It is also relevant to extract the Clause 1 to 3 and 10 of Terms and Conditions of Development Agreement, which reads as follows: 1) The 2 nd party has to complete and handover/deliver possession of the independent villas of the 1 st party allotment/share, within 24 months within the 6 months grace period from the date of obtaining permission for First villa of the B-Schedule of Property. 2) Failing that, the 2 nd party has to pay rent for the said Villas at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month per Villa until completion of the land lords allotted villas. 3) The first party is at liberty to enter into sale agreements with the third parties for their respective allotment villas and to register the same in the concerned registered officers by taking sale consideration amounts at their discretion. 10) The First Party hereby agrees and undertakes not to sell, deal with dispose or alienate or otherwise enter into agreement, in respect of allotted share/plots of the developer (i.e. the second party) with the third parties. 9. According to the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 has not complied with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and he has not made any construction of the Villas in B-Schedule property, which were allotted to the petitioners. At that stage only, the petitioners have executed sale deeds in favour of purchasers and they have not sold the property belonging to respondent No.2 i.e., C-Schedule property, whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that the petitioners executed sale deeds in respect of property allotted to respondent No.2 and they have executed 64 registered documents in a single day i.e. on 28.12.2024, including C-schedule property. The complaint discloses that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. According to the counter filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Konijerla P.S., they only recorded the statement of LW.1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the investigation is under progress. 10. The complaint discloses that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioners. According to the counter filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Konijerla P.S., they only recorded the statement of LW.1 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the investigation is under progress. 10. It is not in dispute that as per the Development Agreement, in the event respondent No.2 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement, the petitioners are entitled to initiate proceedings exercising Clause 7 of Development Agreement, which reads as follows: “In case of any disputes arising between the parties hereto touching these presents, the matter shall be referred to the arbitrator’s one chosen by each party and in case of any difference of opinion between such arbitrators they shall nominate on both the parties and the relevant provisions of the arbitrations act shall apply.” 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the judgments in Mohd. Ibrahim (supra), Premchand R. Nair (supra), and JIT Vinay Arolka (supra), all of which held that criminal proceedings should not be misused for resolving civil disputes, as criminal provisions typically do not apply to civil matters. However, this principle does not applicable to the present case, where specific criminal allegations have been made against A1 to A3 for cheating and the fabrication of documents, including the execution of 64 false registrations in favor of purchasers. While it is acknowledged that there exists a civil dispute, the case also involves serious issues of breach of trust, forgery and violations of the conditions mentioned in the development agreement on 23.03.2021. 12. It appears from the record that the petitioners have not initiated any such proceedings. According to respondent No.2, the petitioners alienated and executed fabricated documents contrary to the Development Agreement including C-schedule property. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners have alienated only B-schedule property, which was allotted to them. Whether, the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 alienated their property or alienated the property of respondent No.2 and whether the petitioners have executed fabricated documents in favour of third parties, the same have to be discovered during the course of investigation. However, the investigation is under progress. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 13. However, the investigation is under progress. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.