Gampa Krishnaveni v. The State Of Telangana
13251 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Between:
Gampa Krishnaveni, Wo. Late. Gampa Mahender, Age. 46 Years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 7-2-67, Shivalayam Street, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.
... PETITION E RYACC USE D AND
1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Jammikunta Town, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.
2. Sudam Siva Kumar, S/o. Veeresham, Age. 40 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 3-1-47, Main Road, Opposite RTC Bus Stand, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District.
...RESPON DENT/DEFACTO COM PLAI NANT Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminil Petition, the High Court may . *-.***I be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 690 of 2020, on the file of ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnagar District '--'",'.
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022 !
'' :-_:::::=s Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner in C.C. No. 690 of 2020, on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnagar Distt ict This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf ofthe Respondent No. 1 and none appeared forthe Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4628 OF 2O22 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.69O of 2O2O on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 420 , 406, 323 arrrd 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the record.
3. The 2"d respondent filed a complaint on L3.O3.2O2O alleging that an €unount of Rs.63,OO ,IL6 / - was given to the husband of the petitioner herein towards purchase of property, in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner's husband and the 2"d respondent. a !
Ii Thereafter, though the 2"d respondent was willing to pay the l ti, II , a
) balance sale consideration, the husband of the petitioner did not execute the document. The said issue was taken up before the elders wherein it was agreed by the petitioner herein and the husband to return the advance sale II consideration along with an excess zunount of Rs.7 lakhs to the 2"d respondent within three months from 29.O9.2OL9. However, neither the amount was returned, nor the property was registered by taking the balance amount, for which reason, a complaint was filed.
4.
The Police having registered the case investigated into the offences and filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 42O, 406, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire money was taken by the husband of the petitioner, however this petitioner is being prosecuted for the death of her husband. In fact, civil suit was filed for specific performance which was pending adjudication before the concerned Court vide OS.No.4 of 2O2O. In the said circumstances, proceedings have to be quashed. li i:
Ii II
-1 6.
On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent rvould submit that though the amounts were taken by the husband of this petitioner, this petitioner has also given an undertaking that the amounts would be returned or the property would be registered in favour of the 2"d respondent. He further submits that subsequently in the year 2019, this petitioner is a party to an agreement to return the amounts or register the document. For thd said reason, when the amounts were taken and not returned, the question of quashing the proceedings against this. petitioner does not arise, since it is a clear case of cheating committed by this petitioner.
7. Admittedly, civil suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dt.22.O6.2OI7. It is further admitted that the entire amount of Rs.63,OO,1l6l- was paid to the husband of this petitioner as on L2.1O.2017. The petitioner is , J not a party to the agreement of sale dt.22.06.2017. B. To attract an offence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal code, it has to be established that the accused
entertained fraudulent intention of cheating since the inception of the transaction. The property was agreed to be sold by the husband of the petitioner herein in the year 2OI7 and received the amount. It cannot be said that this petitioner had entertained the intention of cheating the 2"d respondent herein, when the transactions are in between the husband of this petitioner and 2"d respondent. Further, to attract and offence under Section 406 of the IPC, it has to be established that the amounts were entrusted to person which was subsequently misappropriated. Even according to the complaint and the 2nd respondent, the entrustment of the amount of Rs.63,00 ,tl6l - was to the husband of the petitioner and nowhere it is mentioned that the petitioner was in any way involved in the sale agreement in between the 2"d respondent and the husband or while receiving the amounts on various dates tilt L2.1O.2O17. The ingredients of Section 406 of IPC are lacking.
g.
Learned Counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent would submit that the petitioner was tryrng to dispose of tl-e property by transferring the property in the name of her son'
10. Admittedly, a civil suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 29.06.2017. Any subsequent transaction pertaining to the said property would be invalid, for the reason of pending suit before the Civil Court. Since there are no specific utterances which are mentioned in the complaint regarding any criminal intimidation, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceeding against this petitioner. The transactions are purely civil in nature and the remedy if any lies with the Civil Court wherein the civil suit is already filed.
1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.69O of 2O2O on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnaga-r District, are'hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
\ Sd/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTR4F U-t'
\ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad
2. The lllAdditional District Judge at Karimnagar
3. The station House officer, Jammikunta police station, Karimnagar 4' ].wg CCs to the.Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl s One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI
|lt.
aitt;t{ HIGH COURT KS J DATED: 06/0312023 HE STA It!
o '-) 3 1 NeR 2[13
ORDER
CRLP.N o.4628 of 2022 ..t: I',?.lni:;-r .--,- '
- 31:*rt#fr:i ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION C,Yg.O ffiF