G.Maheswar Reddy, R.R.DT 3 Othrs. vs State Of AP. Rep. PP And Anr.,

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the order dated 07.08.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2013 in Cr.No.664 of 2012 passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District and the resultant proceedings in C.C.No.932 of 2013, on the file of the said court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State. None appears for the second respondent/ de facto complainant. Perused the record.

The second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar alleging offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 406, 468, 506, 120-B IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that she entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner/A-1, who is the agreement holder in respect of plot Nos.44 and 45 admeasuring 200 sq. yards each in Sy.Nos.10, 11/5 and 15/1 at Hydershakote Village & Gram Panchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. A-5 is the original owner of the plots, A-2 is the scribe of the agreement, which was prepared in the presence of A-3. The cost of each plot was Rs.11 lakhs i.e., Rs.5,500/- per sq. yard. The father of the complainant paid Rs.1 lakh towards advance sale consideration for each plot. Subsequently, A-1 and A-2 demanded the father of the complainant to pay Rs.5 lakhs, but he refused to pay and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registration.

It is further alleged in the complaint that A-1 to A-3 forged the signatures of A-5 and showed an agreement of sale as executed by A-5 and received huge amounts from the father and sister of the complainant. Finally, on 16.08.2010, A-5 registered both the plots in their favour separately. Thereafter, they came to know that the said two plots were registered earlier registered in favour of Mr.T.Vikram Singh, s/o Mr.Mahender Singh vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2008. The said Mahender Singh claims to be the GPA holder of A-5. When one Mr.K.Krishna interfered with his possession, Mr.Vikram Singh filed a suit O.S.No.1876 of 2010 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy in respect of subject plots and obtained an order of status quo.

The second respondent further alleged in the complaint that A-1 to A-3 deceived and cheated her father and sister by executing an agreement of sale on 02.08.2010 and issued receipts on 16.08.2020 and later A-1 to A-4 conspired in executing the sale deed, though A-5 executed a GPA in favour of one Mr.Mahender Singh for a valuable consideration through registered sale deed in favour of Mr.Vikram Singh. Accordingly, A-1 to A-5 colluded and conspired and cheated the father and sister of the complainant in purchase of the subject plots. Based on the complaint of the second respondent, the learned Magistrate referred same to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and report. The police registered a case in Cr.No.664 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 406, 468, 506, 120-B IPC and taken up investigation. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of witnesses etc., and after completion of investigation, filed a final report on 30.11.2012 referring the case as civil nature. On 19.12.2012, the second respondent filed a protest petition before the learned Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., read with Section 190 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2012 in Cr.No.664 of 2012 of Rajendranagar Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 406, 468, 506 and 120-B IPC. The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the second respondent has taken cognizance of the case against A-1 to A-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 418, 420, 423, 406, read with Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 filed this criminal petition seeking to quash the order dated 07.08.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2013 in Cr.No.664 of 2012 passed by the learned Magistrate. During the pendency of the proceedings before this court, A-5 died on 27.06.2020 and the case against him stands abated.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations in the complaint and the sworn statement contains lot of inconsistencies and the entire allegations prima facie do not satisfy any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. He further contends that the alleged GPA in favour of Mr.T.Mahender Singh was cancelled long ago by addressing letter dated 10.12.2000 to the Sub-Registrar and any transfer based on such GPA is null and void. Since A-5, who is the original owner of the plots, had executed the registered sale deed in favour of second respondent, the allegation of cancellation of agreement of sale by A-1 and A-3 does not survive and there is no truth in the said allegations.

He further contends that the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1431 of 2011 against Mr.T.Mahender Singh before the learned II Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar for injunction in respect of subject plot and in the said suit, no allegations are leveled against the petitioners. The present complaint was filed a year after filing of the suit. He further contends that the second respondent had falsely without any reason implicated A-2. The investigating officer has rightly filed the final report stating the matter is of civil nature. The learned Magistrate without recording proper reasons and without there being any prima facie allegations attracting the said offences in a routine manner, without taking note of the allegations in proper perspective took cognizance for the offences stated above. Since the allegations in the complaint are civil in nature and as none of the allegations prima facie satisfy any of the offences alleged, he prayed for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.932 of 2013. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in B. SURESH YADAV v. SHARIFA BEE AND ANR 2008 CRI.L.J. 431 RAMA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS 2011 CRI.L.J.652, VESA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., v. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS (2015) 8 SCC 293, INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED RESEARCH CENTRE FOR POWDER METALLURGY AND NEW MATERIALS (ARCI) AND OTHERS v. NIMRA CERGLASS TECHNICS PRIVATE LTD., AND ANOTHER (2016) 1 SCC 348 SARDAR ALI KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AIR 2020 SC 626, HEMKUNWAR BAI v. SUMERSINGH & ORS 2019 Law Suit (SC) 1943.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while opposing the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that A-1 to A-5 conspired together and with a mala fide intention cheated the second respondent as the alleged plots were sold by A-5 through GPA which is prior to the present sale transactions. She further contends that the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint will come out only after full-fledged trial. She prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

The allegations in the complaint disclose that the second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with petitioner/A-1 in respect of subject plots for Rs.11 lakhs for each plot i.e., Rs.5,500/-per sq. yard. An amount of Rs.1 lakh was paid towards advance sale consideration for each plot. Subsequently, A-1 and A-2 demanded the father of the complainant to pay Rs.5 lakhs, but he refused to do so instead he agreed to pay the balance sale consideration at the time of registration. A-1 to A-3 forged the signatures of A-5 and showed an agreement of sale as executed by A-5 and received huge amounts from the father and sister of the complainant. A-5 registered both the plots in their favour separately. The second respondent came to know that the said two plots were registered earlier registered in favour of Mr.T.Vikram Singh, s/o Mr.Mahender Singh vide registered sale deed dated 19.04.2008. The said Mahender Singh claims to be the GPA holder of A-5. Mr.Vikram Singh filed a suit O.S.No.1876 of 2010 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy in respect of subject plots and obtained an order of status quo. Thus, A-1 to A-5 colluded and conspired and cheated the father and sister of the complainant in purchase of the subject plots.

A perusal of the protest petition filed by the second respondent would reveal that only bald allegations have been leveled against A-1 to A-3 that they forged the signature of A-5 and showed the agreement of sale as executed by A-5 and received huge amounts from her father and sister. The second respondent has not stated the amount paid by them, the date of its payment and on what date the amount was demanded, because she made an allegation to the effect that when A-1 and A-2 demanded her father and sister to pay Rs.5 lakhs, they opposed the same. When they opposed the said demand of payment of amount, how come there be again a demand for payment of amount and collection of huge amounts. The second respondent made allegations in respect of the agreement of sale that A-1 to A-3 forged the signature of A-5 without there being any basis. If at all the intention of A-1 to A-3 was mala fide, they would not have produced the original owner/A-5 and got the registered sale deeds in their favour.

It is not in dispute that the agreement of sale dated 23.08.2007 was executed by A-5 in favour of A-1. It is also not in dispute that A-2, being an Advocate, while discharging his professional duty might have drafted the agreement, which was prepared in the presence of A-3. The second respondent entered into an agreement of sale on 02.08.2010 with A-1, who is the agreement holder in respect of subject plots original owned by A-5, who had executed agreement of sale in favour of A-1 on 23.08.2007 and A-1 is authorized to execute agreements of sale in respect of subject plots. Though A-1 is an agreement holder of the plots in question, the fact remains that at the time of registration of plots, it is the original owner/A-5, who had executed the sale deeds in favour of second respondent. The allegation that there is difference in the contents of agreement of sale and sale deed and the same were included by way of deception to cause wrongful gain is without any basis. Interestingly, the sale consideration amount of Rs.11 lakhs was received by A-1 and the sale deed was executed by the original owner/A-5 by showing the sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs which was already paid to the vendor. It appears that the said discrepancy has been portrayed as a mischief on the part of the accused and reason for suspicion about the entire transaction by the second respondent and her sister. Be that as it may, once the registered sale deed was executed in respect of the plots in question, the second respondent has acquired right and title over the said property. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the original owner is alleged to have cancelled GPA executed in favour of Mr.T.Mahender Singh by addressing letter dated 10.12.2000 to the Sub-Registrar and the same was duly acknowledged by them. Since the alleged GPA in favour of Mr.Mahender Singh was cancelled long ago and much prior to the present transaction on 16.08.2010 i.e., almost ten years after the cancellation of the GPA, it cannot be said that the accused have suppressed the said fact and entered into the present transaction and registered the plots in favour of second respondent and her sister. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, the entire allegations make out a civil wrong and a civil remedy is available to the second respondent. Further, nowhere the allegations in the complaint, protest petition, contents of final report and the statement of second respondent disclose the offence of cheating. I do not find any material to show that from the very inception there was any intention on the part of the accused to cheat the second respondent, which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC. So also the allegations in the complaint do not prima facie disclose commission of the other offences alleged. It appears that the second respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.1431 of 2011 before the learned II Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar against Mr.T.Mahender Singh for injunction in respect of subject plots and in the said suit no allegations are leveled against the petitioners about the role played by them and that the present complaint was filed a year after filing of the suit. In fact, the alleged sale deed was executed on 16.08.2010 and the civil suit was filed on 30.06.2011 and the present complaint was filed on 27.07.2012.

The second respondent had shown A-2 as accused without there being any specific allegation against him and he is the person, who has drafted the agreement of sale in the presence of A-3. A-2 is an Advocate by profession and there is no malice on the part of the Advocate and in discharge of his professional dues, he might have drafted the agreement of sale and roping him as accused without attributing any motives would certainly amount to abuse of process of court. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate before issuing the process ought to have exercised much care and caution and carefully analyzed whether the allegations prima facie make out any of the ingredients of the offences alleged to proceed against the petitioners.

For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the entire allegations in the protest petition prima facie do not make out any of the offences alleged and it appears that the matter being essentially and purely civil in nature is being given cloak of criminal offence, obviously to apply pressure on the accused. Under those circumstances, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioners.

The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 07.08.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2013 in Cr.No.664 of 2012 passed by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District is set aside and the resultant proceedings against the petitioners/A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 in C.C.No.932 of 2013, on the file of the said court are hereby quashed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.