Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 850 (TS)

Avvaru Ramakrishna v. State of Telangana

2025-06-10

K.SUJANA

body2025
ORDER : K. SUJANA, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.885 of 2024 on the file of X-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Rachakonda, Medchal District. The petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 and 2 and the offences alleged against them are under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 2. The facts of the case are that the defacto-complainant-2nd respondent lodged a complaint stating that he is the son-in-law of late M. Shyamala Devi who was a member of Sri Bhavana Rushi Co-operative House Building Society (for short ‘Society’) with membership No.2248. The object of the Society was to allot plots to its members in the land available to the Society as per the approved layout of the Society. Late Shyamala Devi was allotted Plot No.68 to an extent of 160 Sq yards vide proceedings dated 26.08.2008. However, she expired on 31.01.2000. The 2 nd respondent as the legal heir of late Shyamala Devi approached the members of Society to transfer the said plot and to register the same in his name. The 2 nd respondent also paid requisite charges for the said transfer. However, the accused postponed the matter on one pretext or the other stating that the said plot was involved in a dispute pending before the Court and the same will be registered in the name of 2 nd respondent after the dispute is resolved. The petitioners in collusion, registered the said plot in the name of one Naveen Kumar who is A.4 stating that he is the member of Society and it was also registered on 21.09.2020, whereas A.4 was not member of the Society and the said membership belongs to one P. Ramadevi. The petitioners herein have created fake membership document and illegally sold the same to A.4 against the bye laws of the Society for wrongful gain, thereby committed criminal breach of trust and cheating. Basing on the said complaint, after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed and the same is numbered as C.C.No.885 of 2024. 3. Heard Sri Sai Sumed Yasaswi Kondapalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. Basing on the said complaint, after completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed and the same is numbered as C.C.No.885 of 2024. 3. Heard Sri Sai Sumed Yasaswi Kondapalli, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the statement of witnesses recorded, even if taken on face value and accepted, it would not make out a case against the petitioners for the offences alleged. The dispute of sale of allotted plots, is between the Society and its members and the remedy is to agitate the dispute under Section 61 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘Act’) by virtue of exemption provided under the said Act for redressal of grievance, but not the criminal case. He further submitted that petitioners as the members of Managing Committee of the Society re-allotted the plot to A.4 by following bye laws of the Society and in furtherance of resolution No.14 and 15 passed by the Society on 16.06.2017 to cancel the plots allotted to the members of Society who have not come forward to register plots as prescribed by the bye laws by paying requisite charges, and to re-allot the plots to the remaining members of Society who are waiting from a long period. Further, the plots allotted by the previous Managing Committee were sought to be cancelled as many members have not come forward to register the plots in their names. It is further submitted that letters were also sent to all such members on 30.04.2017 and there was no response and in some cases, notices were returned due to the demise of members, as such, the Society passed resolution to cancel allotment of such plots and re-allotment was done by way of lottery as prescribed in clause 42 of the bye laws. Hence, there is no illegality in allotting the plot to A.4. 5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegation that Plot No.68 alleged to be allotted to the mother-in-law of 2nd respondent was cancelled with a view to sell and register the same in the name of A.4 is devoid of merits. Hence, there is no illegality in allotting the plot to A.4. 5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegation that Plot No.68 alleged to be allotted to the mother-in-law of 2nd respondent was cancelled with a view to sell and register the same in the name of A.4 is devoid of merits. The previous Managing Committee, after the death of Shyamala Devi in the year 2000 transferred her membership to her son-in-law on 06.08.2008 and as per the directions issued on 07.06.2000 by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, under Section 4 (2) of the Act membership can only be transferred to the legal heir of the particular member but not to any other person. The 2 nd respondent is the son-in-law of late Shyamala Devi, as such, he is not the legal heir and there were allegations against the previous Managing Committee that they have illegally transferred the membership of 135 members of the Society contrary to the directions issued under the Act and also against the bye laws of the Society. He further contended that the said irregularities were also noticed by the Divisional Co-operative Officer of the Department, in his enquiry report dated 19.01.2012, the same is under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.6118 of 2012 and the same is pending. Without considering the same, filing charge sheet is nothing but abuse of process of law. Further the 2 nd respondent made a representation on 10.01.2022 to the District Cooperative Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in respect of the same subject matter and he disposed of the said representation observing that transfer of membership of Shyamala Devi to the 2nd respondent by the previous Managing Committee was fictitious and that the 2 nd respondent is not the legal heir of late Shyamala Devi. It was also observed that allotment of land to Shyamala Devi was in the year 2008 i.e., after the demise, which was a mistake. As such, the said transfer was stated to be invalid by the enquiry officer. Therefore no offence is made out against these petitioners and the petitioners have followed the guidelines and bye laws of the Society, and the irregularities were committed by the previous Managing Committee for which the 2 nd respondent has to avail appropriate remedy. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. Therefore no offence is made out against these petitioners and the petitioners have followed the guidelines and bye laws of the Society, and the irregularities were committed by the previous Managing Committee for which the 2 nd respondent has to avail appropriate remedy. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. On the other hand learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are certain irregularities and even after paying requisite fee, without transferring the property in the name of 2nd respondent, it was transferred in the name of third parties. The investigation reveals that A.4 is not a member of the Society and the said membership is in the name of Ramadevi. As such, it requires adjudication and prayed to dismiss this petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the contention of petitioners herein is that allotment of plot in the name of Shyamala Devi itself is wrong as on the date of allotment of plot, she had died. As seen from the record, the death certificate filed by the petitioners show that the date of death of Shyamala Devi is on 31.01.2000 and plot was allotted to her on 26.08.2008 which shows that on the date of allotment of plot, Shyamala Devi was not alive. Subsequently, the 2 nd respondent filed an application stating that he is the legal heir of late Shyamala Devi and requested to transfer the said plot in his name and the previous Managing Committee without conducting any enquiry about the status of 2 nd respondent, transferred the membership of Shyamala Devi in the name of 2 nd respondent. However, the enquiry officer observed that the said transfer is illegal. Further, the dispute in this case is allotment of plot to A.4 bypassing the 2nd respondent. Even according to the petitioners there is recourse available under Section 68 of the Act to rectify the same. However, to constitute an offence under Section 420 of 406 of IPC, there must be intention to deceive the victim from the beginning, whereas in the present case, there is no such intention to deceive the victim and the petitioners herein have subsequently acquired the position of Managing Committee after transferring the membership in the name of 2 nd respondent. However, to constitute an offence under Section 420 of 406 of IPC, there must be intention to deceive the victim from the beginning, whereas in the present case, there is no such intention to deceive the victim and the petitioners herein have subsequently acquired the position of Managing Committee after transferring the membership in the name of 2 nd respondent. Further, according to the petitioners, they have already sent notices to all the allottees for paying requisite fee for registration of plots, but they have not received any such information from the members and not received the requisite fee. As such, they have re- allotted the same to third parties as per the resolution of the Society. Therefore, it can be an irregularity, but not the offence under Section 420 or 406 of IPC. Further, there are no averments to constitute the above offences, and the 2nd respondent has to approach proper forum for redress of his grievance. 8. In view of the above discussion, continuation of proceedings against these petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.885 of 2024 on the file of X-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Rachakonda, Medchal District are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.