Routhu Prabhakar Rao vs State of Telangana

J. Sreenivas Rao, J

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2367 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jangaon, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

Brief facts of the case:

Respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged the complaint on 22.06.2022 stating that she and Puskuri Praveen together purchased the land in Sy.No.85/B, to an extent of Ac.1.20 gts., from Routhu Prabhakar Rao, i.e., petitioner herein, and pattadar pass book was also issued in their favour. But, few days back, the petitioner criminally trespassed into their land and damaged the cabin and basement. On coming to know the same through their relatives, they went to their land and found cabin and basement were totally damaged and caused loss to a tune of Rs.80,000/-. As their lives were in danger if they went to their land, requested to take necessary action. Basing upon the same, Crime No.125 of 2022 was registered. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the IPC and the same was taken cognizance by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

Heard Ms. Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri L. Prasad Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts. in Sy.No.85/B of Chinnapendyal Village and the same was acquired through a registered sale deed vide document No.622 of 1994, dated 21.11.1994, and his name was mutated in the revenue records. Respondent No.2 played fraud upon the petitioner and claimed rights over the property basing upon a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 23.03.2018, though the same is not binding upon the petitioner.

4.2. She further submitted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2018 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal, against respondent No.2 and others seeking a declaration to declare the registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA, vide document No.983 of 2018, dated 23.03.2018, as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and to declare the pahani patrika for the year 2017 of suit schedule property as void and also sought permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 from alienating the suit schedule property or otherwise creating third part interest in any manner and the said Court granted an ad interim injunction on 30.08.2018 in I.A.No.580 of 2018 and thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Jangaon and re-numbered as O.S.No.60 of 2022.

4.3. She also submitted that when an ad interim injunction order, dated 30.08.2018, is in force, respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha executed the registered sale deed in favour of T. Ravinder Rao and P. Praveen on 07.09.2018. At this stage, the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.24 of 2019 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal, seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 07.09.2018 as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and perpetual injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 4 from interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property.

4.4. Learned counsel further submitted that when both the suits are pending, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 22.06.2022 and the Investigating Officer without properly conducting investigation filed charge sheet and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court, though entire allegations levelled in the complaint are purely civil in nature and the ingredients under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioner.

4.5. She further submitted that the allegation made in the complaint that the petitioner unlawfully entered into the subject property and demolished the basement and cabin, thereby respondent No.2 sustained a financial loss of Rs.80,000/- is not true and correct. Even if respondent No.2 sustained any financial loss, she ought to have filed a civil suit claiming damages rather than lodging a criminal complaint.

4.6. Learned counsel also submitted that respondent No.2 along with P. Nagashireesha executed the registered sale deed dated 07.09.2018 in favour of T. Ravinder Rao and P. Praveen. By virtue of the same, respondent No.2 is not having any right over the property to lodge the complaint. Hence, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are clear abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

4.7. In support her contention, she relied upon the following judgments:

G.B.C. Raj Gopal v. The Government of A.P. and others 2014 (2) ALD (Crl.) 810; and

Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2019 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1020 (SC).

Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner himself had executed agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 23.03.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/- through cheques and delivered the physical possession of the schedule property and their names were mutated in the revenue records and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since then. Subsequently, respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha executed a registered sale deed vide document No.3502 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018. It is further submitted that the petitioner illegally trespassed into the subject property and damaged the cabin and basement and caused huge financial loss to respondent No.2, though he is not having any semblance of right in respect of the subject property.

5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that mere pendency of the civil suits does not bar to initiate criminal proceedings, especially when the petitioner trespassed into the property and damaged the cabin and basement and caused huge financial loss and also there is a threat to respondent No.2 and her husband.

5.3. He also submitted that respondent No.2 is none other than the wife of the purchaser, namely T. Ravinder Rao, who purchased the property through the registered sale deed dated 07.09.2018 and both are residing under one roof.

Hence, the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of execution of the registered sale deed by respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha, respondent No.2 does not have any right to lodge the complaint is not tenable under law.

5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sau. Kamala Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2019) 14 SCC 350.

Analysis:

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the petitioner is claiming rights over the subject property based on a registered sale deed bearing No.622 of 1994 dated 21.11.1994, whereas respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha are claiming rights over the subject property based upon a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 23.03.2018, vide document No.983 of 2018, said to have been executed by the petitioner. From perusal of the document dated 23.03.2018, it reveals that respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha purchased the property from the petitioner by paying sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/-through four (4) cheques bearing Nos. 076666, 076669 and 020398 drawn on Axis Bank and cheque bearing No.629188 drawn on ICICI Bank. The said document further reveals that the possession of the schedule property was delivered in favour of the purchasers. The specific claim of respondent No.2 is that their names were mutated in the revenue records and pattadar passbook was also issued.

The record further reveals that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2018 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal, against respondent No.2, P. Nagashireesha and the Tahasildar, Chilpur Mandal, Jangaon, seeking a declaration that the agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 23.03.2018 as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and also sought rectification of entries in the revenue records and also permanent injunction. Along with the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.580 of 2018 under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. and the said Court granted status quo on 30.08.2018 over the petition schedule property till 06.09.2018. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the Court of Principal District Judge, Warangal, and re-numbered as O.S.No.60 of 2022.

The record further reveals that the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.24 of 2019 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal, against respondent No.2 and five others seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 07.09.2018 as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and alienating the suit schedule property and the said suit was re-numbered as O.S.No.59 of 2022. Even according to the parties, the above said two (2) suits are pending adjudication.

On perusal of the record, it reveals that there are specific allegations against the petitioner in the complaint as well as charge sheet that the petitioner entered into the subject property unauthorisedly, damaged the cabin and basement, and caused a financial loss to a tune of Rs.80,000/- and also alleged that there is a serious threat from the petitioner. The witnesses in their statements also stated the role of the petitioner that he illegally entered into the subject property and damaged the cabin and basement.

Whether  the  agreement  of  sale  executed  by  the petitioner dated 23.03.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha is valid or not has to be decided in O.S.No.60 of 2022. Similarly, whether the sale deed dated 07.09.2018 executed by respondent No.2 and P.Nagashireesha in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.59 of 2022 is valid and binding on the petitioner has to be decided in the said suit only.

It is pertinent to mention that the Investigating Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses filed charge sheet, wherein specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner that he unatuthorisedly entered into the schedule property and damaged the cabin and basement and caused financial loss and also there is a threat to respondent No.2 and her husband in his hands. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not committed any offence. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that whether the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution or not will be revealed during the course of the trial only.

The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have filed suit for recovery of amount for the alleged damaged property worth of Rs.80,000/-, on the other hand, filed complaint invoking penal provisions, especially two civil suits are pending in respect of very same property and the proceedings in C.C.No.2367 of 2022 against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law are concerned, it is already stated supra that there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner that he entered into the subject property and damaged cabin and basement and caused huge financial loss and a serious threat to her and her husband in his hands. It is trite law that mere pendency of civil cases between the parties does not bar to invoke criminal jurisdiction, provided the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.

It is relevant to mention that in K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. (2020) 14 SCC 552, the Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the well-settled principle that the same set of facts may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, and that availing a civil remedy does not bar the initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents like Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and  Trisuns  Chemical  Industry  v.  Rajesh  Agarwal,  to  reiterate  that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie criminal offence. The Court observed that many acts of cheating occur in the context of commercial or financial transactions, and such a “civil profile” does not strip the act of its “criminal outfit.” The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be limited to rare and exceptional cases. It emphasized that just because a transaction involves a commercial or monetary element that alone is not a ground to rule out criminal intent or proceedings. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the criminal proceedings, stressing that criminal cases must proceed as per the Cr.P.C. and cannot be halted solely due to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or authority of the civil forum.

Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 does not have the right to lodge the complaint dated 22.06.2022 against the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha had already sold the property to others and that she is not an aggrieved party is concerned, respondent No.2 is none other than the wife of T. Ravinder Rao, who purchased the property along with P. Praveen through a registered sale deed, dated 07.09.2018, and both are residing under one roof. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no right to lodge a complaint and that only the aggrieved party can lodge a complaint is not tenable under law.

In G.B.C. Raj Gopal supra, the case of the petitioner therein is that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are police officials, calling and pressuring the petitioner to subscribe his signature to the already prepared documents without disclosing the contentions thereof and threatening to implicate him in criminal cases if he failed to do so and the same is not permitted under law and said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu supra, the appellant therein approached the erstwhile combined High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, seeking to quash P.R.C.No.2 of 2018 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) read with 34 of the IPC and the same was dismissed on 30.08.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed S.L.P. and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal holding that High Court rightly refuse to quash the criminal complaint and the said judgment is also not supporting the case of the petitioner, on the other hand supports the case of respondent No.2.

In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, with caution, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but may be applied where the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, do not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence. The case on hand is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2376 of 2022.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any ground to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2376 of 2022 against the petitioner pending on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, his presence in C.C.No.2376 of 2022 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during the course of trial, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his counsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that any of the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this case and the trial Court shall decide the matter basing upon the evidence, which is going to be adduced by either of the parties, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.