← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCRLP/12383/2017dismissed

Medisetty Venkata Maheswara Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2017-12-20Shameem Akther3 pages

HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER CRIMINAL PETITION No.12383 OF 2017 ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in Crime No.226 of 2017 of Dwaraka Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. 2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State and perused the record.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and falsely implicated in this case. The de facto complainant was allotted Plot No.42 and there is an agreement to that effect, but no other plot was allotted to the de facto complainant. The petitioners are ready to register the Plot No.43 in favour of the de facto complainant subject to release of mortgage by VUDA, Visakhapatnam, and ultimately prayed to allow the application. 4.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for grant of bail to the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 and contended that the petitioners initially allotted Plot No.26 to the de facto complainant and thereafter, they have changed it to Plot Nos.15 and 16. In that process, they have received substantial money from the de facto complainant as sale consideration and ultimately failed to register the document and thereby cheated the de facto complainant. There are no justifiable grounds to allow the application.

5.

The material placed on record reveals that the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are husband and wife. The petitioner/A.1 is the Managing Director of

Dream Homes Projects and Developers and the petitioner/A.2 is the Director of the said firm. As per the proceedings dated 28.02.2015, the de facto complainant was allotted Plot No.26 with passbook No.9015, in the venture of "Sai Sampath Nivas" and there are also terms and conditions of payment of sale consideration in that agreement. In that process, the petitioners have collected Rs.3,20,000/- towards advance money and have to collect the balance sale consideration within 90 days and register the said plot. But they did not do so. On 03.03.2016, an amount of Rs.3,62,000/- and Rs.1,38,000/- were received by the petitioners herein and the receipts were also passed to that effect. Even then, the Plot No.26 was not registered in favour of the de facto complainant.

6.

During the course of negotiations, these petitioners have offered Plot Nos.15 and 16 admeasuring 180 Sq. yards and the said plots are valued at Rs.13,50,000/-. The de facto complainant paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,30,000/- to the petitioners on 24.03.2016 and a receipt was also obtained to that effect. The de facto complainant also paid Rs.50,000/- towards stamp duty and expenses to the petitioners. Even then, the petitioners did not register the Plot Nos.15 and 16 in favour of the de facto complainant. In total, an amount of Rs.14.00 lakhs was said to have been taken by the petitioners from the de facto complainant for the sale of the plots as mentioned above. 7.

The manner in which the petitioners made to enter into the agreement for the sale of Plot No.26 admeasuring 167 Sq. yards, thereafter changing the sale of Plot Nos.15 and 16 and the manner in which the petitioners received Rs.14.00 lakhs from the de facto complainant, constitutes the requirements of 'cheating' and 'dishonest intention' on the part of the petitioners. In view of the nature of the

allegations levelled against the petitioners/A.1 and A.2, it cannot be said that the petitioners are innocent persons and falsely implicated in this case. There are number of documents to show the proposed sale and receipt of money from the de facto complainant. The matter requires thorough investigation. Therefore, the petitioners/A.1 and A.2 are not entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

8.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. _________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 20-12-2017.

anr