K.Vasudha vs State Of Andhra Pradesh

1.This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in C.C.No.405 of 2011 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.

The second respondent filed a private complaint before the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar against the petitioner herein and another. The petitioner is A-1. The allegations in brief are that she is the owner and possessor of plots bearing Nos.38 and 39 admeasuring 2000 square yards in survey No.105 (Part) situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same from petitioner under registered sale deed dated 11.05.1999. The entire sale consideration was paid in respect of said plots. Subsequently, the petitioner delivered vacant possession of the said plots. Later, the petitioner in collusion with A-2 executed cancellation of sale deed which was executed in favour of the second respondent making a false declaration that the sale consideration was not received. The said complaint was forwarded to the Narsingi Police Station, Cyberabad District and the same was registered in Cr.No.118 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act. After completion of investigation, the police filed final report against the petitioner and another.

Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations of the complaint do not make out any of the cognizable offences, much less, the alleged offences. The second respondent already filed civil suit vide O.S.No.171 of 2008 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 24.03.2006 executed by the petitioner in favour of one Jaipal Reddy who is A-2 in the above crime. He also submits that the entire transaction is of civil in nature. Therefore, he prayed to allow the petition and quash the proceedings.

The allegations made in the charge sheet, F.I.R./complaint would reveal that the second respondent purchased plot bearing Nos.38 and 39 admeasuring 2000 square yards in survey No.105 (Part) situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District under registered sale deed dated 11.05.1999 and having received the sale consideration of Rs.4.00 lakhs, the petitioner handed over the vacant possession of the land. After that on 24.03.2006 the petitioner in collusion with A-2 executed cancellation of sale deed dated 11.05.1999 with false declaration that Rs.4.00 lakhs towards sale consideration was not received. Basing on these allegations only, the case was registered for the aforesaid offences.

The offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. To constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived

i) to deliver any property to any person, or

ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything singed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.)

The transaction took place between the petitioner and the second respondent. When a sale deed was executed conveying the schedule property, there was no false representation about the ownership and there is no fraudulent inducement to part with the sale consideration. It is not the case of the second respondent that the petitioner tried to deceive her either by making a false or misleading representation of ownership or dishonest inducement to purchase the property. In the present case, the ingredients of cheating as found in Section 415 IPC are missing.

Section 406 IPC:

Coming to the ingredients of offence under Section 406 IPC, is the entrustment with property or with any dominion over the property or when the person entrusted converting the property to his own use would detriment of persons who entrusted. The allegations of the complaint do not attract any of the ingredients of offence under Section 406 IPC, since there is no entrustment and there is no misappropriation of any property.

The second respondent also filed civil suit for cancellation of alleged cancellation deed alleged to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of A-2. The averments in the complaint even assumed to be true do not make out any offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to apply the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to avoid the abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in C.C.No.405 of 2011 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.