Telangana High Court
Alok Kumar Alok Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Telangana on 24 August, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10975 OF 2018
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.1416 of 2016 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally seeking quashment of charge sheet ,which was taken cognizance against him for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC along with other accused.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge are as under:
3. The petitioner is a tenant of premises bearing No.12-7- 66/6/NR, Railway Godos Shed Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad. The said property belongs to the de-facto complainant and A1 to A3. A1 to A3 have leased out the said property to the petitioner/A4 on monthly rent and executed lease agreement. In the said property along with A1 to A3 the de-facto complainant is also having 25% share. The de-facto complainant, who is 1/4th shareholder, does not know about leasing out of the property in favour of the petitioner and on realizing the same, she went to the petitioner and on going through the lease agreement, it was realized that huge amounts 2 were received by A1 to A3 from the petitioner as an advance and also monthly rents were also being shared by A1 to A3 and they have not paid the share of the de-facto complainant. On the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant, police have registered a case in Crime No.418 of 2017 and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 and also petitioner, who is the tenant. Cognizance of the same was taken against all the accused for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment of the charge sheet.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that A1 to A3 approached the petitioner stating that they are the owners of the property bearing Door No.12-7-66/6/NR, Railway Goods Shed, Moosapet, they have also represented that they have got the share @ 40%, 30% and 30% respectively, it was leased out to him under lease agreement for monthly rent of Rs.84,000/-. He has also given an amount of Rs.56,000/- each to A1 to A3 as security deposit on 05.07.2015 vide cheque Nos.730774, 730775 and 730776 drawn on Indian Bank, Himayathnagar Branch. Originally, lease agreement was 3 executed for a period of 11 months, however, even after expiry of the lease period, the petitioner/A4 has been continuing as a tenant and paying the rent regularly to A1 to A3. The de-facto complainant has sent a notice to the petitioner that he is also having 25% share along with other accused for which the petitioner/A4 has replied. The petitioner/A4 was under the bonafide belief that only A1 to A3 are the owners of the property. When the de-facto complainant has asked the petitioner to vacate the premises, he has filed O.S.No.1487 of 2017 against A1 to A3 and the de-facto complainant alleging that they are trying to evict him forcibly without following due process of law. It is also submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has handed over the premises to A1 to A3 along with the keys. It is submitted that A1 to A3 in collusion with the de-facto complainant to get him evicted, a false case has been foisted and therefore, prayed the Court to quash the charge sheet.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has colluded with A1 to A3 and thereby denied the share of the de-facto complainant and 4 therefore, there is a material against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner being a tenant has colluded with the other accused in order to deny the de- facto complainant's share in the rent and advance amount and that the petitioner is not an innocent person thereby, the case against him cannot be quashed summarily without subjecting him to the charges levelled against him.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioner in C.C.No.1416 of 2017 can be quashed?
9. The petitioner is no way concerned with the de-facto complainant and A1 in respect of the property belonging to them except that he has taken the property on lease for monthly rent and also vacated subsequently. The property, which was taken on lease by the petitioner, originally belongs to 5 A1 to A3 and the de-facto complainant. However, the petitioner does not know that the de-facto complainant is also having 1/4th share in the property. On account of ignorance in respect of rights of the property, the petitioner/A4 entered into lease agreement with A1 to A3, who have misguided him that those are the three persons that A1 to A3 are the owners of the property having shares @ 40%, 30% and 30% in the property which the petitioner has taken on lease. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to know that the de-facto complainant is also having 1/4th share. Therefore, when the petitioner is ignorant of the share of the de-facto complainant, nothing can be attributed against him.
10. In fact, the complaint of the de-facto complainant shall be against A1 to A3. They are the one who have misguided the petitioner and told him that they are the exclusive owners and they did not whisper anything about the share of the de-facto complainant in the property. Therefore, the de-facto complainant has rightly filed a case against them for denying his right over the property. The de-facto complainant can also file a suit for recovery of the rents received by A1 to A3 to the 6 extent of his share. In any case, since there are disputes inter se the de-facto complainant on one side and A1 to A3 on the other side, unnecessarily the petitioner/A4 is made to suffer.
11. The investigation of the police also did not specifically mention as to how the petitioner/A4 has committed the offence of cheating and how he has done criminal breach of trust and he has intimidated criminally. It is not the case of the prosecution that on account of denying the share of the de- facto complainant, A1 to A3 have leased the premises to the petitioner at a cheeper rate than the market price. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it is immaterial as to whether A1 to A3 are the owners or the de-facto complainant is also the owner of the property as long as he has been paying the rent without any default. Since the petitioner has been paying the agreed rent to A1 to A3, believing that they are the owners, he cannot be said to have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC.
12. Considering the circumstances, police have failed to make out any material against the petitioner that the petitioner has committed the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. 7 It is also to be noted that the petitioner has alleged that in order to get him vacated, the de-facto complainant and A1 to A3 have colluded amongst themselves and got filed a case against the petitioner and got filed the criminal case including the petitioner/A4 and also made an attempt to evict him on which he has filed a civil suit against A1 to A3 and the de-facto complainant. Therefore, the petitioner even according to the prosecution there is no material to hold that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC and therefore, continuation of proceedings against him amount to abuse of process of law.
13. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the case against the petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.1416 of 2017 is hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 24.08.2022 ES