Telangana High Court
Sardar Manjeet Singh vs State Of Telangana on 5 July, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8126 OF 2019
ORDER:
This petition is filed seeking quashment of C.C.No.250 of 2017 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar.
2. The facts, in brief as per charge sheet are as under:
3. On 11.06.2016 at 5.30 p.m. the de-facto complainant filed a complaint before the police stating that the land to an extent of 704 square yards in Sy.No.837/R situated at Kothirampur originally belongs to her mother, who, in turn, has executed registered gift deed to the de-facto complainant and her sisters separately to an extent of 180 square yards each and also executed registered Will deed in respect of the rest of the land in favour of her brother. All of them i.e., her 3 sisters and brother have, in turn, jointly executed a registered sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant brother's son by name Nimma Naresh vide document No.12806 of 2015.
4. On 06.05.2016, the de-facto complainant and her sisters have received a legal notice from Erram Raji Reddy, Advocate, 2 Karimnagar, alleging that the de-facto complainant, her two sisters and her brother have jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of one D. Thirupathi Reddy, D. Anil Reddy and R.Rajendra Chary on 29.04.2015 and the said persons also executed resale agreement in favour of the petitioner and another. Reply notice was got issued by the de-facto complainant, her sisters and brother stating that they have never executed any agreement of sale in favour of Tirupathi Reddy and two others. The de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before the police stating that the petitioner and another accused have created some document by way of forgery in respect of their landed properties, abused them in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences and that they also committed the offence of cheating.
5. Basing on the said complaint, the police have registered a case in Crime No.267 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 506 IPC read with 34 IPC and on completion of investigation charge sheet is filed alleging that the accused have committed offence under Section 420, 468 and 506 read with 34 IPC.
3
6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this petition to quash the charge sheet.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the de-facto complainant, her sisters and her brother have executed an agreement of sale in favour of D. Tirupathi Reddy and two others in respect of 540 square yards and received an amount of Rs.7.5 lakhs as against the sale consideration of Rs.54 lakhs and that the agreement holders have, in turn, executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and another. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant, her sisters and her brother have executed a registered sale deed for total extent of land i.e., 704 square yards in favour of their brother's son Nimma Naresh, who, in turn, has sold the said property to M/s. Select Motors on 21.09.2016. The petitioners have filed O.S.No.158 of 2016 in the Court of District Judge, Karimnagar for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.12.2015 and that the dispute between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner is purely civil in nature and therefore, prayed the Court to quash the charge sheet.
4
8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has opposed the same stating that as per the charge sheet there is a material to hold that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 506 read with 34 IPC.
9. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioner in C.C.No.250 of 2017 can be quashed?
10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the conduct of the de- facto complainant, her sisters and her brother in not executing the registered sale deed has filed O.S.No.158 of 2016 for enforcement of specific performance of agreement of sale. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. If at all the de-facto complainant feels that they have not executed the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner, the same thing has to be agitated before the civil Court where the de-facto complainant can take steps to send the disputed document for hand writing expert to get an opinion as to whether the agreement of sale was really executed by the de- facto complainant or not. Instead of resorting to the said procedure, the de-facto complainant has filed a complaint and 5 the police have hurriedly registered a case and filed charge sheet.
11. In order to constitute the offence under Section 420 IPC, the de-facto complainant is expected to allege and prove that the petitioner/A4 has dishonestly induced the de-facto complainant to deliver the property by way of forgery of agreement of sale. The petitioner must have dishonest intention from the inception in order to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. On perusal of the charge sheet, there are no specific allegations that the petitioners were having intention to cheat the de-facto complainant from the inception.
12. In Vijay Kumar Ghai and others vs. The State of West Bengal and others1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at paragraphs 31 to 36 as under:
"31. Section 415 IPC defines "cheating" which reads as under:
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."
The essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are: 1
(2022) 7 SCC 124 6
1. Deception of any person
2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person--
(i) to deliver any property to any person; or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
32. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
33. Section 420 IPC defines "cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property" which reads as under:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
34. Section 420 IPC is a serious form of cheating that includes inducement (to lead or move someone to happen) in terms of delivery of property as well as valuable securities. This section is also applicable to matters where the destruction of the property is caused by the way of cheating or inducement. Punishment for cheating is provided under this section which may extend to 7 years and also makes the person liable to fine.
35. To establish the offence of cheating in inducing the delivery of property, the following ingredients need to be proved:
(i) The representation made by the person was false.
(ii) The accused had prior knowledge that the representation he made was false.
(iii) The accused made false representation with dishonest intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was made.7
(iv) The act where the accused induced the person to deliver the property or to perform or to abstain from any act which the person would have not done or had otherwise committed.
36. As observed and held by this Court in R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam [R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 454] , the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to:
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. Thus, cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC."
13. In order to constitute the offence under Section 420 IPC, the de-facto complainant is expected to allege and prove that the petitioner/A4 has induced the de-facto complainant to deliver the property and such delivery was only on account of deception played by the petitioner. In the case on hand, the allegation of the de-facto complainant is that the petitioner has created agreement of sale in order to grab the property. As per the prosecution version, the petitioner has filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Hence, there are no ingredients to hold that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
8
14. As per the charge sheet, it is clear that the police did not send the disputed document to the hand writing expert. Only thereafter the police can come to a conclusion as to whether the signatures on the said agreement of sale belong to the de-facto complainant, her sisters and her brother. There is no material in the charge sheet to conclude that the signatures of the de- facto complainant, her sisters and brother were forged, as required under Section 468 IPC.
15. In respect of Section 506 IPC also, the only allegation by the de-facto complainant in her complaint is that she has informed the petitioner that they have not executed any agreement and that the petitioner and others have created the documents. Except that, there is no prima facie material, which goes to show that the petitioner has threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences as required under Section 506 IPC, which reads as under:
"506. Punishment for criminal intimidation, - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc, - and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with 9 imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
16. In order to fastened the liability punishable under Section 506 IPC, the prosecution is expected to allege and prove that on account of the threatens by the accused causing injuries to the person or reputation or property of the de-facto complainant with an intention to cause alarm to the de-facto complainant, thereby the de-facto complainant does an act, which he is not legally bound to do.
17. In the case on hand, as per the complaint, few days earlier to filing of the complaint, three persons of Kothirampur came to the de-facto complainant and threatened her to execute registered sale deed, otherwise, it will not be good and they would go to any extent, including killing her. It is also alleged that the petitioner/A4 also threatened the de-facto complainant through mediators stating that in case if the de-facto complainant fails to execute registered sale deed, he would make the de-facto complainant to go round the Courts and will not leave her and kill her. The contents of the complaint if taken as 10 true facts, still the criminal liability under Section 506 IPC cannot be fastened on the petitioner/A4.
18. According to the de-facto complainant, she was threatened twice. In first instance, three persons from Kothirampur came and threatened her with dire consequences, including killing. She did not disclose on what date, in whose presence, at which place, at what time, who has threatened her. She did not even mention the names of the persons threatened her. So far that incident is concerned, the petitioner/A4 cannot be connected.
19. In respect of second incident, it is alleged by the de-facto complainant that the petitioner/A4 got threatened her with dire consequences, including killing her through mediators. That means, the petitioner/A4 did not physically, personally did not threaten the de-facto complainant. The petitioner as well as the de-facto complainant do not have face to face meeting or altercation. That means a mediator has allegedly threatened the de-facto complainant. Whether the said third person was asked by the petitioner/A4 to threaten the de-facto complainant is not clear. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned who the said mediator was. She is expected to mention the name of the 11 mediator, who was sent by the petitioner/A4 to threaten her. Even if that statement is accepted, the person, who has threatened the de-facto complainant, is liable for the offence under Section 506 IPC but not the petitioner/A4.
20. Even otherwise, the said criminal intimidation shall be in such a manner that on account of such threatening, the de-facto complainant must have done some act, which she would not have done in normal course. It is not the case of the de-facto complainant that on account of the threatens of the petitioner/A4, she has to done some act, which otherwise, she would not have done.
21. Therefore, considering from any angle, when the presence of the petitioner/A4 itself is not mentioned by the de-facto complainant in respect of the alleged offence under Section 506 IPC, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the said offence.
22. In Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 12 has held as under: 2
(2013) 11 SCC 673 12 "12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court."
In Rajib Ranjan and others vs. R. Vijaykumar3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 24 has held as under:
"24. Having regard to the circumstances narrated and explained above, we are also of the view that an attempt is made by the respondent to convert a case with civil nature into a criminal prosecution. In a case like this, the High Court would have been justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It would be of benefit to refer to the judgment in Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd. ((2006) 6 SCC 736, wherein the Court adversely commented upon this very tendency of filing the criminal complaints even in cases relating to commercial transaction for which civil remedy is available or has been availed. The Court held that the following observations of the Court in this behalf are taken note of."
23. On application of the rationale in the authorities cited above, in this case the de-facto complainant has converted civil litigation into criminal. The dispute, according to the petitioner, 3 (2015) 1 SCC 513 13 is that the de-facto complainant and others executed agreement of sale and on refusal by the de-facto complainant to execute the sale deeds, a suit for specific performance of contract is filed in civil Court and the same is pending. All the issues pertaining to the said agreement of sale, including the question whether the agreement of sale was genuine or forged will be dealt with by the civil Court. Hence, it appears to arm twist the petitioner, a criminal case has been filed.
24. Considering from any angle, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner can be quashed.
25. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.250 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karimnagar, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 05.07.2022 ES