Telangana High Court
V.Yadagiri, Hyd And Three Others vs Public Prosecutor, Hyd And Another on 9 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9026 OF 2015
ORDER:
1 This criminal petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C, is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in P.R.C.No.19 of 2015 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar registered for the offences under Sections 420, 386, 452 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC, ST (PoA) Act.
2 Heard Sri K.Ravikanth, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P.Hari Prasad, learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the second respondent - State.
3 The case of the prosecution is that the father of the complainant G.Sreeramulu purchased Plot No.111, admeasuring 416.67 Sq. yds., in Sy.Nos.44, 45, 46 situated at Medipally Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy district for the welfare of complainant's children. Thereafter, the husband of complainant Somani Naik constructed a house bearing D.No.12-111 i.e. ground floor, first floor and a pent house. Accused No.1 and the husband of complainant are doing real estate business and the accused No.1 approached the husband of the complainant and intends to purchase a plot. Then the husband of the complainant purchased a plot 2 in the name of accused No.2 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the same was sold in the year 2008 for an amount of Rs.18,00,000/-. Thereafter the accused No.1 and 2 requested the husband of the complainant to purchase another plot by investing said amount for which the husband of the complainant purchased plot. But when a dispute arose with regard to the said plot, the accused No.1 and 2 with the help of one Kistaiah Goud and the accused No.4 called the complainant and her husband to the Medipally Police Station on 31.05.2011 and threatened with dire consequences saying that said Kistaiah who worked as circle inspector of police is a encounter specialist and A.4 is an Ex- Naxalite and shown weapon and forcibly obtained blank cheques and obtained signatures on blank papers and also kept the husband of the complainant in Medipally P.S. and taken the complainant to Sub- Registrar Office and executed a sale deed in favour of Accused No.2 and 3 under threat, if the complainant does not sign on the said sale deed, they will encounter her husband. Therefore, under fear the complainant signed on the sale deed, vide Document No.3776/2011 on 31.05.2011. Basing on the said document after execution of the sale deed they created another agreement of sale and also filed a private complaint against the husband of the complainant and arrested in the said complaint with collusion of Medipally Police. Basing on the said forcible sale deed the accused No.1 trespassed into the house. The complainant 3 and her husband and others resisted the acts of the accused. The accused Nos.1 to 4 abused the complainant and her husband by using their caste name LAMBADI LANJA KODUKULLARA, MEE ANTHU CHOOSTHAM, for which the complainant and her husband lodged a complaint before Police, Medipally but the police Medipally colluded with the accused and in turn the police Medipally threatened the complainant and her husband, if they lodge any complaint they may implicate in more cases against the complainant and her husband. The complainant approached State Commission of SCs & STs on 10.01.2012 and the commissioner passed an order directing the Commissioner of Police to enquire the matter and also lodged a complaint to Hon'ble Home Minister and Commissioner for Central Excise. It is further stated that basing on the said sale deed the accused No.2 and 3 obtained injunction order and forcibly entered into the house on 25.04.2012 and threatened the complainant her husband that if they make any complaint against them, they will see the end of life of complainant and his family members. Immediately after said incident she approached P.S. Medipally and reported the said incident but the police did not take any action against accused herein and there is no hope of taking any action against the accused persons by the said police, since they are highly influenced persons. Hence, requested for necessary action. Basing on the above complaint the respondent No.1 registered a case in Crime No.244/2012 4 U/Ss.420, 386, 452, 506 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and took up investigation. The investigating officer, after examining the witnesses cited by the complainant and after doing thorough investigation, filed charge sheet before the court below referring the case as 'false'. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed a protest petition before the trial Court. The trial Court after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses on her behalf, registered the case as P.R.C.No.19 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 420, 386, 452 and 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act and issued summons. Hence the present criminal petition. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as there was no sworn affidavit filed by the second respondent while referring the complaint to the police from the trial Court. 6. It is further submitted that the police after conducting elaborate investigation had already referred the case as false. The protest petition filed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable, which ought to have been filed under Section 190 (1(b) & (a) Cr.P.C. but not under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
5 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently opposed the 5 petition and submitted that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
6 As seen from the complaint the date on which the alleged incident had taken place was not mentioned. Moreover, even according to the second respondent, the incident took place inside the house. So there is no public view to witness the incident which is main ingredient to constitute an offence under the S.Cs & S.Ts (PoA) Act. Further, as per the version of the second respondent the alleged execution of sale deed by force and under coercion was on 15.5.2011. But the court referred the complaint on 01.5.2012 much long after the incident, which was not properly explained. It is also brought to the notice of the court that the second respondent herein filed a civil suit O.S.No.176 of 2012 against the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein wherein she admitted that she sold half of the property to the petitioners and that the petitioners and their people have occupied the same. The said suit was with regard to the boundaries. However, the said suit was dismissed. Hence no dispute on execution of sale deed by the second respondent can be entertained, having received the valid sale consideration. In the said suit, the second respondent did not mention anything about the coercion or threat which forced her to execute the sale deed. It is the contention of the second respondent that the police confined her husband in the police station on 6 31.5.2011 and took her to the sub-registrar office to execute the sale deed and that she executed the sale deed under fear of threat. But surprisingly, her husband is witness to the said document. It is also pertinent to note that it is her own case that on her application the Commissioner of S.C, & S.T Commission passed order on 10.09.2011 directing the Commissioner of Police to enquire into the matter. Basing on such reference only the Assistant Commissioner of Police investigated into and referred the case as false. It is also to be noted that the second respondent filed a complaint before the S.C & S.T Commission with two different contentions. In that it was mentioned that the petitioner No.1 herein entered into an agreement with the second respondent to purchase the first floor for Rs.47,50,000/- and paid Rs.7,50,000/- as advance and thereafter issued cheques which were bounced. The other contention was that on 02.10.2011 the petitioners trespassed into her house and forcibly threw her and her family and occupied the ground floor. Therefore, the second respondent misrepresented certain facts. Thereafter the second respondent filed W.P.No.22121 of 2011 wherein the contention of the second respondent was that in civil matters the police are interfering. However, on a statement made by the first respondent herein that police are not interfering, that writ petition was closed. So even as per the second respondent it is a dispute of civil in nature. It is also to be noted that the petitioners issued notice to the 7 second respondent in O.S.No.646 of 2022 for specific performance of agreement of sale. The second respondent made so many contrary statements to each other.
7 Taking the totality of the circumstances of the case into consideration I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8 In the result, the criminal petition is allowed, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners in P.R.C.No.19 of 2015 on the file of learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 09.11.2023 Kvsn