Madhavi Desidi and another vs State of Telangana

Juvvadi Sridevi, J

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.423 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03(a). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is the complainant. It is alleged that in May, 2017, the accused No.1 approached the respondent No.2 representing herself to be the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.80/VUU, admeasuring Ac.2-01 guntas, situated at Khairatapur Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, having acquired the same through a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.4105 of 2007, dated 12.07.2007, executed by her father one Velma Ram Reddy. Accused No.1 is offered to sell the said property for valuable consideration and furnished a copy of the aforesaid Gift Settlement Deed to the respondent No.2. Thereafter, at the request of the respondent No.2, the accused No.1 took him to the said survey number and showed a piece of land, asserting it to be her own.

03(b). It is further alleged that believing the same, the respondent No.2 paid the entire sale consideration, pursuant to which the accused No.1 executed a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.2544 of 2017 dated 09.05.2017, in favour of the respondent No.2. Subsequently, in June, 2022, one Velma Pedda Ram Reddy and others allegedly trespassed into the said property purchased by the respondent No.2 and attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. When questioned about their interference, they informed the respondent No.2 that the accused No.1 and her father did not own any land in the said survey number, as the father of the accused No.1 had already sold his share of the land to third parties long ago. It was stated that the father of the accused No.1, who was the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.80/VUU, admeasuring Ac.2-01 guntas situated at Khairatapur Village, had sold an extent of Ac.1-14 guntas to one Chanda Ravinder and four others through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1399 of 1993, dated 28.06.1993, and that out of the remaining extent, Ac.0-23 ½ guntas had been acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) long back for the purpose of widening NH-9, leaving no land available with the said Velma Ram Reddy.

03(c). However, as the purchasers failed to mutate their names in the revenue records, the name of Velma Ram Reddy continued to stand in the said records. On knowing the same, the respondent No.2 obtained a certified copy of the Sale Deed bearing Document No.1399 of 1993 and verified that the father of the accused No.1 had indeed alienated an extent of Ac.01-14 guntas to third parties and that the remaining land had been acquired by NHAI for road expansion.

03(d). It is alleged that taking undue advantage of the fact that the revenue records still reflected the name of Velma Ram Reddy, the accused Nos.1 and 2, in collusion with the said Velma Ram Reddy, fraudulently created a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No.4106 of 2007 dated 12.07.2007, in favour of the accused No.1 in respect of the already alienated land. Based on the said Gift Settlement Deed, the accused No.1 subsequently sold the property to the respondent No.2 under a registered Sale Deed for valuable consideration, thereby allegedly cheating the respondent No.2 and causing wrongful loss to him while obtaining wrongful gain for themselves.

03(e). It is further alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were fully aware of the prior sale of the said property by their father as well as the acquisition by NHAI, but with malafide intention and taking advantage of the revenue entries, they fabricated the said Gift Settlement Deed to deceive innocent purchasers. On discovering the said facts, when the respondent No.2 confronted the accused Nos.1 and 2 and demanded refund of the sale consideration, they allegedly threatened him with dire consequences to see his end with the help of anti-social elements.

Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they are nothing to do with the alleged offences. All the allegations levelled in the charge sheet are false and baseless. There is suppression of material facts in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 that he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal against the petitioner-accused No.1 and others wherein the subject property was shown as suit schedule ‘A’ property, which is pending for adjudication. The present complaint was lodged after six years after execution of the sale deed. The Police without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 to cheat the respondent No.2. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the required ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The allegations are of purely civil in nature but the respondent No.2 is trying to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting full-fledged trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

Having regard to the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the gift deed in question was a registered document bearing No.4105 of 2007, executed in favour of petitioner-accused No.1 by her father. Further, it is apparent from the record that the respondent No.2 has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, against the petitioner-accused No.1 and four others, wherein the subject property is shown as the suit schedule ‘A’ property, and the said suit is pending adjudication.

A careful perusal of the record discloses that the allegations made are civil in nature. The sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 was executed on 09.05.2017, and ever since, the respondent No.2 has been in peaceful possession of the subject property. The FIR in the present case was lodged only in the year 2023, thereby indicating an admitted delay of six years in lodging the complaint. Upon a meticulous examination of the material on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. Furthermore, it is to be noted that a civil suit had already been instituted prior to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings, which is pending adjudication before the competent civil court, where the respective rights of the parties can be effectively determined. There is no material on record to indicate any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 so as to constitute the offence of cheating as alleged. Insofar as the allegation under Section 506 IPC is concerned, there are no specific averments as to the manner in which the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have caused criminal intimidation to the respondent No.2.

In State of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and others 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

In the present case on hand, as observed supra, the alleged transaction took place in the year 2017, whereas the complaint came to be registered only in the year 2023. It is evident from the record that the respondent No.2 had already approached the competent civil court prior to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings, wherein the petitioner-accused No.1, along with others, has been arrayed as one of the defendants. In support of the allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. Among them, two witnesses are the respondent No.2 and his brother, who are admittedly interested witnesses; two are panch witnesses; and one is the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to note that one neighbour, who was shown as an eyewitness, stated about the land transaction between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused No.1; however, despite being cited as an eyewitness, his statement is completely silent with regard to any act of criminal intimidation allegedly caused to the respondent No.2. Further, the said Velma Ram Reddy, who is alleged to have interfered with the possession of the respondent No.2, was not examined by the Investigating Officer, which omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Significantly, no independent witness has been examined by the Investigating Officer. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie, constitute any of the alleged offences against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, and the material collected during the course of investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, does not disclose the commission of any offence so as to make out a case against them. Hence, the present case falls within the ambit of point Nos.1 and 3 of Ch.Bhajan Lal’s case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.423 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.