Gongireddy Maheswar Reddy v. The State Of Telangana And ANR
[ 3218 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAO TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW IHREE :PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E V VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3648 OF 2015 Between:
Gongireddy Maheswar Reddy, S/o. Kodanda Ram Reddy, R/o. Somaram, Rajapet mandal' Nalgonda District'
...petitioner/Accused AND
1. The State Of Telangana Rep. by its PP, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
2. Ravi lndrasena Reddy, S/o. Late Rami Reddy, R/o.H.No.1-2-279, Siddipet Road, Jangaon, Warangal District.
.RespondenUcomplainant Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.106 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon. t.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLPMP. NO: 3918 OF 2015 Petition under Section 482 ol 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 all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner C.C.No.?06 ol 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N HARI PRASAD, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri VIZARATH ALl, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri PADMA RAO G.S. LAKKARAJU, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL PETITION No.36480F2o15
ORDER
This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.106 of 2014 on the file of the Couft of the Principal Judicial First Class Magiskate, Jangaon, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 lPC. Heard Sri N. Hari Prasad, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent - State and Sri Padma Rao G.S.Lakkaraju, learned counsel for the second respondent.
The accusation against the petitioner is that the second respondent lodged a complaint alleging that on 17.01.20t3, the petitioner herein took Rs.30.00 lakhs as advance to sell his land of Ac.34-22 3/4 guntas of agricultural land. The value of the land per acre was fixed as Rs.2,80,0fi)/-. Again on 16.3.2013 on the premise that the sister of the petitioner by name Leelavathi also intends to sell her land admeasuring Ac.8-10 guntas, to which also the rate per acre was fixed at Rs.2,80,000/- the second respondent paid an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the petitioner. The petitioner received the said amount also promising to give receipt after it is executed by his sister. Be that as it may, as the last date for payment of amount being L7.7.2013, the second respondent along with elders went to
a.: _:1 the petitioner one month prior to the date and requested him to measure the land for the purpose of paying the balance as per the agreement. But the petitioner postponed the same under one pretext or the other. Then, the second respondent having entertained some suspicion, enquired in the village and he also applied E.C. and pahani copies from Mee Seva. To his utter surprise, to the first respondent came to know that the petitioner is having only an extent of Ac.O-14 guntas in Sy.No.9 but as per the version of the petitioner the petitioner is having Ac.1-34 guntas. The second respondent also came to know that the petitioner sold the land to some third parties prior to the agreement of sale dated 16.3.2013 and suppressing the saip fact that he is having only Ac.0-14 guntas in Sy.No.
9, the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale for Ac.1-34 guntas as if still the petitioner is holding Ac.1-34 guntas. Likewise the second respondent also came to know that the entire extent of Ac.l-29 % guntas in Sy.No.134laa which is being cultivated by some ryots, was also not disclosed to the second respondent at the time of entering into the agreement of sale. Fufther, there is no land in Sy.No.lO/a as the petitioner sold the same to some third parties prior to the agreement of sale. Hence it is not possible for the petitioner to convey the Ac.1-34 guntas in Sy.No.9, but he can convey only Ac.0-14 guntas in Sy.No.9 and the extent of Ac.L-29 1/+ guntas in Sy.No.
--r7 /-l the said lands. Further, the petitioner had already sold Ac.1-08 1/2 guntas of land in Sy.No.10/a to third parties prior to the agreement of sale. Hence the second respondent filed the complaint praying to punish the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of IPC.
The learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the same as C.C.No.106 of 20L4. As stated supra, seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was filed with a mala fide intention to coerce the petitioner an terms. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, even according to the first respondent, is that the balance sale consideration money is to be paid after measuring the land and taking into consideration of the land available for sale. It indicates that the pafties are not sure as to the exact extent available for sale in which event the question of cheating on the basis of the agreement of sale does not arise.
Even according to the complaint the petitioner offered to return the money by issuing a legal notice and this makes it very clear that question of intention to cheat also does not arise as the petitioner offered to return the money. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature since the second respondent had already filed O.S.No.
t \w\'4 agreement of sale dated 15'3'2013' Therefore' the offence under Section 420IPcasallegedagainstthepetitionerdoesnotstandforscrutinyandthe learned trial Court erred in laking cognizance of the offence' The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the judgment dated10.3.2020ino.S.No.l2Tof2013wherebythesaidSuitwasdecreed partly in favour of the second respondent holding that the probabilities of the case and the preponderance of proof is in favour of the second respondent for the relief of refund of the advance sale consideration only but he is not entitled for specific performance of the agreement of sale or for that matter any damages which the second respondent herein suffered duetothenon-performanceofthecontractualobligationofthepetitioner.
Accordingly the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs'40'00'000/- with 9o/o p'a' simple interest to be paid by the petitioner to the second respondent within onemonthfromthedateofthejudgment.
-7 Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has intention to cheat the second respondent even at the time of entering into the agreement of sale' which is the prime requirement for an offence under Section 420 IPC' Since the parties have already approached the civil Court and a decree was already passed decreeing the suit partly in favour of the second respondent' No fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the petitioner to deceive the second respondent can be inferred' On examination of the entire material availabre on record, the matter which is essentially of civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence' The ingredients required to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out from a bare reading of the material available on record' Since the petitioner had already suffered a decree in a civil court' the continuation of the present proceedings would nothing but abuse of process of the Court' Accordingly, this criminal petition is allowed' quashing the proceedings proceedings against the petitioner herein in C'C'No'106 of 2074 on the file of the Court of the Principal ludicial First Class Magistrate' Jangaon' 10 Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
^..?3{i-?tttis'i* -,-n/ I SECTION OFFICER To 1[i'{ls[1il+:";l1fr :,s:.,;iiffi ::i';l'T''HJil:,i:$:::.sanaa'i 1.
2.
3.
['f:"3i "li f"':Jh?l'ff a:d s'lffiHl:S :fJ' *"" to P u c] 4.
. Two CD CoPies lNV..,,o,
HIGH COURT DATED:1 711012023
ORDER
gTATe oA CRLP.No.3648 of 2015 (-'
:) ) tg Ns\ it8 i:', 't/ :.y'
\ ',.* lr'
ALLOWING THE CRLP C\ "tNl