Vadde Janardhan vs Vadde Sathyanarayana

This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner-accused aggrieved by the order dated 24-8-2015 passed in Crl.M.P No 2130 of 2013 in CC 368 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sanga Reddy for dismissing the discharge petition filed by him under Section 227 Cr.P.C.

The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 21-7-2012 at 10:00 AM, the 1st respondent - complainant lodged a report before the police stating that he belonged to Gundla Machnoor Village of Hathnoora Mandal of Medak District. Five years back he sold his agricultural land of 0.30 guntas located in the limits of Ameenpur Village of Patancheru Mandal of Medak District for Rs 90.00 lakhs and purchased a house at Shanthi Nagar for Rs.46.00 lakhs on 19-5-2008 and gave the rooms in the house on rent. The accused, who was his distant relative, a police constable belonged to ARPC 817, took a room on monthly basis. He also used to collect rents from other tenants. The complainant believed him on all aspects. The complainant was constructing a house at his native place and intended to mortgage the house at Shanthi Nagar and to obtain loan from the bank. The accused took him twice to the bank for securing the loan and saying that delay was occurring for getting loan, gave an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in 2 installments and took him to registration office, made him believe that for obtaining mortgage from the bank, registration had to be done as per the bank procedure, prepared registration documents and obtained his signatures over the papers and took his original house documents stating that the original documents should be kept with the bankers. Subsequently, on 5-7-2012 he came to know through his relatives that the accused got registered the house on his name, approached the registration office and noticed that the accused got registered the house on his name. He along with his family members questioned the accused, but the accused stated that the bankers denied loan for him and as they would give loan to the Government employees, he got registered the house on his name for the purpose of loan. The complainant requested for cancellation of registration and that he was ready to pay the loan amount, but the accused threatened him and obtained the signatures of his family members on blank papers.

Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police, Sanga Reddy Town Police Station registered a case vide Cr. No 235/2012 under Section 420, 506 IPC and after investigation filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the above offences. The accused filed a discharge petition vide Crl.MP No 2130 of 2013 and the same was dismissed by the Court. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the accused preferred this revision.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent - complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner for discharge, the Magistrate failed to see that the petitioner purchased the property for a sum of Rs.21,57,000/- vide registered sale deed document No.12281 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011 in the presence of the witnesses, the complainant acknowledged the notarized cash receipt dated 12-12-2011. Moreover, the wife and children of the complainant gave a declaration vide notarized declaration deed dated 19-12-2011 consenting to the sale of said property. Due to escalation of land rates, the complainant forced him to resell the land. When he refused to do so, the present case was foisted. The petitioner filed O.S. No.167 of 2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy and obtained interim injunction against the complainant vide I.A. No.637 of 2012 restraining the complainant from interfering with his possession. The Magistrate failed to see that a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner by the Inspector of Police and the charge of fraudulently acquiring immovable property was not proved vide report dated 24-4-2014, the complainant admitted in departmental enquiry that he received the amount of Rs.21,57,000/- from the petitioner and also admitted that he filed a false case against the petitioner. The Magistrate failed to see that the entire case was civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were not maintainable and prayed to allow the revision.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant contended that the complainant was innocent, being his relative, he believed the petitioner-accused, the family members of the complainant also believed him. The departmental enquiry proceedings were not binding on criminal Court and prayed to dismiss the revision.

The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the complainant signed on the sale deed considering it as mortgage deed, the contents of declaration was not explained to him in vernacular language, there was no error in the order of the trial Court to be corrected in this revision and prayed to dismiss the revision.

Perused the record. Since this revision is filed against the discharge petition, the truthfulness of the allegations levelled by the complainant or the weight of the defence evidence cannot be determined at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the availability of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 would not exclude the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and prayed to treat this petition for revision as under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkapoor and others v. State and others 1980 (1) SCC 43, wherein it was held that:

"Nothing in the Code, not even Section 397 can affect the amplitude of the inherent power preserved in Section 482. Even so, easy resort to inherent power is not right except under compelling circumstances. Inherent power should not invade areas set apart for specific power under the same Code. However, there is no total ban on the exercise of inherent power where abuse of the process of the court or other extraordinary situation excites the court's jurisdiction. The limitation is self restraint, nothing more."

Learned counsel prayed to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings on the basis of the defence material and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor 2013 (3) SCC 330 wherein it was held that:

"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection.

Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused."

Considering the above judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the material produced by the accused is evaluated.

The complaint as well as the charge sheet would disclose that the complainant sold his land in Ameenpur Village of Patancheru Mandal of Medak District for Rs.90.00 lakhs and purchased a house at Shanthi Nagar for Rs.46.00 lakhs vide registered documents. Thus, he was aware of the registration proceedings and a worldly wise person. He signed on the sale deed dated 12-12-2011 executing the registered document to the petitioner-accused before the Sub-Registrar. His family members, his wife and sons, who were all majors also signed on a notarized declaration dated 19-12-2011 stating that the complainant sold the property for Rs.21,57,500/- to the petitioner and they received the amount and executed registered document No.12281 of 2011 and they would not claim anything in the said property as his legal heirs. The cash receipt for receiving an amount of Rs.21,57,500/- was signed by the complainant. The same was also notarized before an advocate.

The departmental enquiry report dated 24-4-2014 would disclose that on the complaint given by the complainant, an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner for misconduct on two counts, one for purchasing the house at Shanthi Nagar without obtaining permission from competent authority and the second for involving in criminal case in Cr.235 of 2012 under Section 420, 506 IPC of Sangareddy (T) Police Station and fraudulently acquiring the immovable property. The complainant during the enquiry admitted that he received Rs.21,57,500/- from the charged ARPC and the agreement was executed in the presence of caste elder Vemula Venkatesh and that he also admitted in the presence of elders that he filed a false case against the charged ARPC. His son, examined as PW2, also admitted that they sold the house to the charged ARPC for Rs.20.00 lakhs and initially his father had filed a case against him and now the total amount was received from the charged ARPC. Considering their evidence the enquiry officer opined that the charged ARPC purchased the house from PW1, Sathyanarayana and even his son PW2, Mallesh and others deposed that the house was sold to charged ARPC, the sale consideration amount was given in the presence of elders as well as advocate and notary was executed but not fraudulently as alleged in the above crime and sale deed was executed before the joint Sub-Registrar in the presence of two witnesses and thus the matter of purchasing the house fraudulently would not arise and held the count No.2 as not proved.

With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the departmental enquiry proceedings were not binding on the criminal Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Ors. 2020 (9) SCC 636, wherein it was held that:

"31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case." After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as follows:-

"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(vi)The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

It finally concluded:

In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.

From our point of view, para 38 (vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated."

Hence, considering the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the departmental proceedings on the identical facts is on merits and the registered public documents, the notarized affidavits and enquiry report prima-facie would prove that the complainant was not consistent in his version and that he was not innocent as alleged by him, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is considered as an abuse of process of law and hence, liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order dated 24-8-2015 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2130 of 2013, in CC No.368 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Court for Prohibition and Excise Offences at Sanga Reddy and quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.368 of 2014.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.