Mettu Venkata Laxmi v. The State Of Telangana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4815 OF 2022 Between:
Mettu Venkata Laxmi, Wo. Thandava Dasi Reddy, aged 62 years, Caste Reddy, R/o. Q.No. A8/263, PTS NTPC, Godavarikhani.
...Petitioner/Accused No.2
AND'1. The State of Telangana, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Cou( of Telangana, through P.S. NTPC.
,..RespondenUcomplainant
2. Chukka Rammohan Rao, S/o. Buchi Narsaiah. aged 31 years, Caste Yellpi R/o. Nagunoor, Karimnagar Mandal and District ...RespondenUDe-facto Com plainant 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 call for the records relating to C.C No. 713 ot 2O2O. on the file of the Hon'ble lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Godavarikhani, and quash the same so far as the Petitioner/Accused No.2 is concerned. t.A. NO:1 OF 2022 Petrtion 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 grant stay of all further proceedings rn C.
C No 713 of 2020, on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Godavarikhani so far as the Petitioners/Accused No. 2 is concerned, including appearance of petitioner, pending disposal of Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing. upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.
HONIBLE SRI JTISTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.4815 OF 2022 ORDER:
1. This Criminai Petition is filed to quash tJre proceedings against the petitionerlA2 in C.C No.713 of 2O2O on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Godavarikhani.
2. The 2nd respondent lodged complaint on26.1 1.2O18 stating that his father Buchi Narsaiah purchased 325.52 sq.yds for consideration of Rs-16,25O1- from the Secretar5r of Backward Classes Co-operative House Building Society through registered sale deed on 08.04.1988 at Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli. His father died on O2.O2.2Ol4and the land was allocated to his mother. In the year 20 13, A1 namely Bhadraiah sold the said land to the petitioner who is A2. On the basis of tJ:e said complaint, FIR was registered for the offences under Section 42O r/w Section 12O(b) of IPC and investigated the case. After investigation, charge sheet was hled lor the said offence.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 submits that in fact, she had purchased the propert5r from A1 and if at all the land did not belong to Ar. the petitioner herein is a victim and an innocent purchaser cannot be criminally prosecuted for
the offence of cheating. Since there was never any communication in between the 2nd respondent and this petitioner, the question of cheating does not arise.
4. On the other hand, the 2"d respondent appeared party-inperson and submitted that the registration of the said land was done on 30.03.2013 though the land did not belong to A1, he has sold it to A2. A2 }:.ad knowledge that the land did not belong to A1.
Having come to know about the cheating committed, the 2nd respondent issued notice on27.LO.2O18 through an advocate. However, even prior to that, rectilication deed was registered at ihe instance of this petitioner and A1 on O5.10.20 18 indicating that previously reference to document No.1792 of 1983 was not made in the registered document dated 30.03.2013 and accordingly, rectiltcation deed was executed.
5. Admittedly, the land did not belong to A1. Whether this petitioner was induced by A1 into purchasing the land or whether this petitioner in collusion with A1 got registered the sale deed in her favour on 30.03.2O13 are subject matters of trial. This Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot decide the intention of conspirators in cases of this nature. The 2nd I
respondent is alleging. that the property belongs to them and A1 did not have any rights over the said property.
6. The transaction between A1 and A,2 raises any amount of doubt. If Al did not have requisite documents, it is suspicious as to why this petitioner entered into sale deed in the year 20 13. Thereafter, the document No. 1792 of 1983 was entered into as rectification deed. These transactions reflect that both this petitioner and A1 had knowledge about the land not belonging to A1.
7. For the said reason, the Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and the sarne is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the present petition, which is decided even prior to trial. During the course of trial, if the defence of this petitioner appears to be probable, the trial Court can accordingly pass orders. Sd/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Godavarikhani The Station House Officer, NTPC Police Station, Peddapalli District. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri. T. RAMCHANDER RAO, Advocare [OPUC] One CC to Sri. CHOKKA RAMIl/MOHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copies o PSR plp Bs<
HIGH COURT DATED:2711212022 LA t e \ \ C.. r'
N .n et l.
il i-- 'Lo s ,i
ORDER
.\ c l-r CRLP.No.4815 of 2022 , CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED 4.
o,\tt cr-.-(-