Ananthula Laxmi And Another vs State Of Telengana And Another

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1754 of 2021 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nalgonda.

The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 420 and 506 of IPC.

Heard Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2 - de facto complainant.

The contents of the charge sheet would reveal that respondent No.2 herein had bought 324.44 square yards of commercial - cum - residential plot in Survey No.522/E, situated at Mamillagudem outskirts, Nalgonda Mandal and District from accused No.1 for an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) in the year 2012. Two years thereafter, when she approached accused No.1 to sell her aforesaid mentioned plot for which accused No.1 informed her that both the plots were combined and sell it away and in the said process two years passed away. Then, respondent No.2 had decided to construct a new house over her plot. At that time, one Mr. Narasimha obstructed her stating that the plot belongs to him as it is located in Survey No.76 comes under Kothapalli Revenue Village. After obtaining survey report, he has constructed a shop over the said plot. After knowing that the petitioners herein have cheated her, respondent No.2 and her husband, LW.2, approached the petitioners with request to return money or plot. The petitioners dragged the matter on the pretext of repayment of the money as per the market value and they have not made payment. Thus, the petitioners herein have committed the aforesaid offences.

Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners herein were falsely implicated in the above case with an intention to harass them for monetary benefits. He would submit that the petitioners are no way concerned with the aforesaid case. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2 lacks the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The Investigating Officer had not conducted the investigation properly and laid the charge sheet. There was a delay of 10 years in lodging the complaint.

i) Learned counsel would further submit that respondent No.2 instead of lodging the complaint against Mr. Narsimha, who obstructed her and constructed a shop over her plot, lodged the complaint against the petitioners herein which is nothing but harassing them. Further, there are no allegations in the compliant against petitioner No.2 still the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against him.

ii) Learned counsel would also submit that petitioner No.1 had purchased the land in Survey No.522/E to an extent of Ac.0.08 guntas from its original owner vide registered sale deed bearing document No.2784 of 2012, dated 21.02.2012. Out of the said extent, an extent of 324.44 square yards was sold to respondent No.2 herein vide registered Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney bearing document No.8559 of 2012 dated 07.06.2012 and remaining extent to different persons. Thus, there was no cheating at all on the part of petitioner No.1 as alleged in the complaint as well as charge sheet. Further, respondent No.2 ought to have approached the Civil Court for recovery of possession from Mr. Narasimha. Respondent No.2 herein demanded the petitioners to pay money illegally and having waited for two years, lodged the complaint against the petitioners with false allegations. It is purely a civil dispute and the same was converted into criminal nature.

iii) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the aforesaid C.C.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein and the same are triable issues which have to be tried and decided by the Court below after full-fledged trial. According to him, the Investigating Officer having recorded the statements of the witnesses and on consideration of the same only filed the charge sheet. Since there were no allegations against accused No.3 and since none of the witnesses spoke against him, the Investigating Officer deleted the name of accused No.3. In view of the same, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

Perusal of the record would reveal that it is no doubt true that petitioner No.1 had purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas in Survey No.522/E, situated at Mamillagudem Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, vide a registered sale deed bearing document No.2784 of 2012, dated 21.02.2012. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, out of the said extent of Ac.0.08 guntas of land, petitioner No.1 had sold an extent 324.44 square yards in the very same survey number to respondent No.2 herein under a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (with possession) bearing document No.8559 of 2012, dated 07.06.2012. The recitals of the said document would disclose that respondent No.2 herein had purchased the said plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,92,000/-, whereas, in the complaint and the charge sheet, it is mentioned that respondent No.2 had purchased the subject plot for a total consideration of Rs.10,50,000/-.

In the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that LW.9, Investigating Officer, requested Sub-Registrar Office, Nalgonda to furnish ownership particulars of the land documents i.e., 2784 of 2012 and 8559 of 2012 for the purpose of investigation. LW.9 got certified copies of the said documents and his inquiry revealed that there is no land in Survey No.522/E. Thus, there are triable issues, which have to be decided only after full-fledged trial, but not in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C.

The complaint as well as the charge sheet would reveal that in the document under which respondent No.2 had purchased the subject plot, it is mentioned that the subject plot is located in Survey No.522/E of Majmillagudem Village of Nalgonda Mandal and District, whereas one Mr. Narasimha obstructed respondent No.2 stating that the subject plot belongs to him and that it is located in Survey No.76 of Kothapalli Revenue Village. Even, the Mandal Surveyor had conducted the survey and gave report to him. No such survey report is filed before this Court. It is also a triable issue as to whether the subject plot comes in Survey No.522/E of Mamillagudem Village or in Survey No.76 of Kothapalli Revenue Village, which can be decided only after full-fledged trial, but not in a petition under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this Court, for the simple reason no such survey report is placed before this Court either by the petitioners herein or the prosecution so as to come to a conclusion.

As stated above, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein which are triable in nature and thus, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same liable to be dismissed.

The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.