Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Tanuja Potluri Sritanuja.N vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 September, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y
Criminal Petition Nos.4294 and 4295 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
These two Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are filed seeking quash of the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners in Crime No.08/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 of A.C.B. Police Station, Guntur, for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "P.C. Act") and under Sections 409, 420 r/w.120-B of IPC.
2) The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4294 of 2021 is A-10 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.4295 of 2021 are A-8 and A-11 in the above crime. Therefore, both the petitions were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
3) A person by name Komatla Srinivasa Swamy Reddy, who is totally a stranger to the private sale transactions in question relating to private lands that took place between the petitioners and their vendors, lodged a report with the D.G., ACB, A.P., Vijayawada, on 07.09.2021.
4) The gist of the allegations set out in the said report germane for disposal of these Criminal Petitions may be stated as follows:
(a) The de facto complainant claims to be an advocate from Prakasam District. It is stated in the report that he has been 2 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 following the issues in the legal and in the social media relating to insider trading that took place in Amaravati capital area between Krishna and Guntur Districts in purchasing hundreds of acres of land during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014. A few public servants purchased large extents of land between June, 2014 and December, 2014. In the Assembly session held in January, 2020, the Government disclosed in the Assembly that people in high position took advantage of being involved in the decision making process relating to location of capital of Andhra Pradesh between June, 2014 and December, 2014 and purchased lands for themselves, either in the name of their binamis or in the name of their family members. They also shared the said information relating to exact location of capital with their followers, kith and kin and thereby enriched themselves. One of the names referred to in this regard is Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, the then Additional Advocate- General. Therefore, he has made his efforts to secure information in the public domain about Mr. Dammalapati Srinivas and his associates.
(b) It is stated that in the advocates circle also it is openly proclaimed that Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas is close to the then Chief Minister Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu and his associates in the Telugu Desam Party. Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas was appointed as an Additional Advocate-General as per G.O., dated 19.06.2014 and later he was appointed as Advocate-General as per G.O., dated 28.05.2016. Further stated that between June, 3 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 2014 and December, 2014 there were rumours and leaks about the location of the capital. The exact location of capital at Amaravati and the details of villages within its limits were known to very few people in the Government headed by Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu. The document with the list of villages included in the capital area was published in official draft only in the month of December, 2014. It was placed before the Council of Ministers in the last week of December, 2014, after the Bill of Capital Region Development Authority was prepared. The Council of Ministers approved the same in the last week of December, 2014. Till then, all the details relating to location of capital was kept secret.
(c) However, people who are close to top political leaders in the Telugu Desam Party and their binamis bought huge extent of lands at low price during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014 by exploiting the information that they had regarding location of the capital. Thus, there was insider trading, breach of trust and abuse of official position by those people including the former Additional Advocate-General.
(d) Therefore, it is stated in the report that he searched in the internet and the official website of Registration and Stamps Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and secured the information relating to purchase and sale of lands by Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, his family members, relatives and binamis. It came to light at that time the father-in-law, brother- in-law, wife and relatives of Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas 4 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 purchased large extents of land in the villages included in the capital city area and abutting the said area and near arterial roads and iconic bridge proposed to be constructed across the River Krishna. Some lands which are initially purchased in the name of the relatives of Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas were subsequently transferred in the name of Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas and his wife for the same price. The de facto complainant has furnished about 11 names of the beneficiaries of such transactions in the report and the list includes the names of the petitioners herein and stated that Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, as Advocate-General, in prior criminal conspiracy with his family members, friends and other individuals, organized to purchase the lands by abusing his position as public servant. The said lands were purchased to gain pecuniary benefits to himself and other persons known to him and related to him and thereby committed an act of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w.Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the "P.C. Act"). He has also committed breach of trust as a public servant in prior conspiracy with the above named persons. Innocent farmers who had no knowledge of location of the capital at their lands sold the property for a paltry sale consideration and they were cheated. Therefore, he requested the D.G., ACB, A.P., Vijayawada City, to initiate necessary action to prosecute the persons named in the report. 5
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
5) On receipt of the said report lodged by the de facto complainant on 07.09.2020, the D.G., ACB, AP, Vijayawada, by his order dated 08.09.2020, passed in C.No.82/RE-VGT/2020- S17, instructed Sri T.V.V. Pratap Kumar, Dy.S.P., ACB, Guntur, to conduct a regular enquiry and submit report on the said allegations made against former Advocate-General and others.
6) Accordingly, the Dy.S.P, ACB, Guntur, conducted a preliminary enquiry and he has submitted his report, dated 14.09.2020, to the D.G, ACB, AP., Vijayawada, stating that during the course of preliminary enquiry that he has collected relevant documents pertaining to the sale of lands from internet and the web-site belonging to the Stamps and Registration Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and it is surfaced during the course of his enquiry that the said sale transactions took place during the months of June to December, 2014. In the Assembly session that took place in January, 2020 the Government disclosed in the Assembly that people in high position took advantage of being involved in decision making process about location of capital of Andhra Pradesh and thereby they purchased lands during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014 for themselves either through their binamis or through their family members by sharing the said information about location of capital area.
7) It is also stated in the report that the de facto complainant stated in his statement recorded during the course of enquiry 6 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 that in the advocates circle, it was openly proclaimed that Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas with his close intimacy with the then Chief Minister and his associates in Telugu Desam Party, was initially appointed as Additional Advocate-General and was later appointed as Advocate-General and he and other top leaders in the Telugu Desam Party and businessmen bought lands in and around the capital region with prior knowledge of exact location of the capital and cheated the farmers, who sold their lands to them.
8) The report also states that there were rumours and leaks about the location of capital at Amaravati, but its limits were known to very few people in the Government. The list of villages included in the capital area was published only in the month of December, 2014 and till then the villages coming within the capital area are not known to the public. Therefore, even before the official notification was issued on 30.12.2014, the accused, who secured information relating to exact location of the capital region in illegal manner, had, by indulging in insider trading, purchased the said lands from the farmers. The names of the beneficiaries of such sale transactions are furnished in the report and they are:
1) Dammalapati Srinivas;
2) Dammalapati Nagarani;
3) Nannapaneni Krishnamurthy;
4) Nannapaneni Sita Rama Raju;7
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
5) Nannapaneni Lakshmi Narayana;
6) Madala Vishnuvardhana Rao;
7) Mukkapati Pattabhi Rama Rao;
8) Yarlagadda Ritesh;
9) Yarlagadda Lakshmi;
10) Nuthalapati Sritanuja;
11) Nuthalapati Sribhuvana;
12) Katragadda Srinivasa Rao; and
13) Vellanki Renuka Devi.
9) It is stated that the innocent farmers, who have no prior knowledge of location of capital in their area, sold away their property at low price and thus, the farmers were cheated by the accused.
10) Therefore, it is stated in the report that Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, who is privy to the information relating to exact location of the capital area, grossly misused his official position as Additional Advocate-General and divulged the said information to his relatives, friends, which is a secret information and thereby purchased the lands in the capital area and adjacent to it for paltry sale consideration from the farmers, who have no knowledge about the location of the capital area, and thereby enriched himself and also got the lands purchased by his associates from the farmers in the similar manner and thereby committed an act of criminal misconduct. So, it is stated that all the accused have indulged in insider trading and 8 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 that Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas is liable for prosecution for the offences under Section 13((1)(d)(ii) r/w.Sec.13(2) of the P.C. Act and also under Sections 409, 420 r/w.120-B of IPC and other accused are liable for prosecution for the offences under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC.
11) On the basis of the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report wherein it is stated that the accused have committed a cognizable criminal offence and that it is necessary to register a case against the accused and conduct a thorough investigation, the D.G., ACB, AP, Vijayawada, by his order dated 14.09.2020, instructed Sri T.V.V. Pratap Kumar, Dy.S.P, ACB, Guntur, to register a case against the accused. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered on 15.09.2020.
12) The petitioners, who are A-8, A-10 and A-11, sought quash of the said F.I.R. primarily on the grounds that they hail from a respectable family and A-8 is a Post-Graduate with stellar educational credentials and currently engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and his wife A-11 is a Senior Radiologist and A-10 is an advocate by profession commanding good practice before various High Courts and they have been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive to tarnish their image and the image of their family members. Also on the grounds that the F.I.R. or the preliminary enquiry report do not establish any connection between A-1 and the petitioners and that the de facto complainant is not an aggrieved person who 9 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 sold the lands to the petitioners or to any one and that there is a delay of six years in lodging the report relating to the said sale transactions by the de facto complainant, who is totally stranger to the said sale transactions. It is the specific version of the petitioners that they have purchased only small portions of land in their individual capacity in the month of July, 2015 long after the notification was issued notifying the capital region and location of capital for valid sale consideration paid to their vendors. Therefore, no offence of cheating or any criminal conspiracy is made out against these petitioners. So, it is stated that allowing the criminal proceedings to continue in the said facts and circumstances of the case against them would amount to abuse of process of Court and thereby sought for quash of the F.I.R. registered against them.
13) Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum- Special Public Prosecutor for ACB, for the 1st respondent State, filed memo adopting the counter-affidavit filed by the State in W.P.No.16468 of 2020, stating that the facts are similar in both the Writ Petition and the present Criminal Petitions and requested to read the said counter-affidavit as part and parcel of the present Criminal Petitions. A copy of the said counter- affidavit is filed along with the said memo.
14) The said counter-affidavit was filed by Sri T.V.V. Pratap Kumar, Dy.S.P., ACB, Guntur denying material averments of the petitions. It is pleaded that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has 10 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 repeatedly held that on any information furnished regarding commission of a cognizable offence, a Station House Officer is obliged to register an F.I.R. and in the instant case, on the information furnished before the Station House Officer and after conducting preliminary enquiry, the F.I.R. was registered against the persons named therein. It is stated that the F.I.R. was registered on the basis of the bona fide information that was furnished and on the basis of the law laid down in the case of Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 by the Apex Court. Therefore, the registration of F.I.R. is completely legitimate and it is unexceptionable. It is stated that the information disclosed in the F.I.R. clearly constitutes a cognizable offence and as mandated by the Supreme Court in various judgments, the present F.I.R. was registered. It is further stated that, as further investigation was stayed by this Court on the very day of registration of F.I.R. i.e. on 15.09.2020 in W.P.No.16468 of 2020 preferred by A-1, that no further investigation could be made. It is pleaded that the Apex Court repeatedly held that the investigation cannot be scuttled at a nascent and early stage and the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be sought to be exercised for thwarting an investigation of a cognizable offence and the said law has been reiterated in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 11 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 Maharashtra2. It is finally pleaded that as the petitioners seek to raise several factual issues of complexity and defence that the same cannot be considered under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While making parawise denial of all the averments made in the Writ Petition No.16468 of 2020, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petitions.
15) Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent de facto complainant, has submitted that he is adopting the aforesaid counter-affidavit of the State filed in W.P.No.16468 of 2020.
16) When the Criminal Petitions came up for hearing before this Court, heard arguments of learned counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, appearing for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the 1st respondent State and Sri O. Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent de facto complainant.
17) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, in fact, these are covered matters in view of earlier common order of this Court passed in a batch of Criminal Petitions in Crl.P.Nos.4819 of 2020 decided on 19.01.2021, which was confirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636 of 2021 and batch, as per order dated 19.07.2021. He would submit that all the issues which 2 (2020) 10 SCC 118 = (2021) SCC Online SC 315 12 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 are raised in these Criminal Petitions were already considered by this Court in the aforesaid earlier common order of this Court and held that the facts of the case do not constitute any offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B of IPC. He would submit that this Court has elaborately discussed regarding the legal position relating to the said offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120-B of IPC and gave a categorical finding that the facts of the case do not constitute any such offences. So, he would submit that as the present F.I.R. was also registered against the petitioners herein based on similar allegations and identical facts that the petitioners, who are similarly placed, are also entitled for quash of F.I.R. He would submit that even this Court has elaborately dealt with the concept of offence of insider trading in the aforesaid earlier common order and held that the said offence of insider trading is alien to our criminal law under I.P.C. and it was only an offence punishable under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (herein after called as "SEBI Act, 1992") relating to unlawful disclosure of information pertaining to sale of securities in stock market. Therefore, he would submit that in view of the above common order of this Court, which was also confirmed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636 of 2021 and batch, as per order dated 19.07.2021, that the present prosecution against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC is also not maintainable under law and thereby prayed to 13 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 quash the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners in the present case.
18) Learned counsel for the petitioners further vehemently contended that the allegations set out in the F.I.R. and also the contents of the preliminary enquiry report show that the notification notifying the capital region and location of capital city was issued in the month of December, 2014 i.e. on 30.12.2014 and prior to issuance of the said notification that the information relating to location of capital city and the area covered by it is a confidential information which was within the knowledge of the officials of the Government who are at the helm of affairs at that time and it is not a public information and as such, all the sale transactions that took place relating to the accused between June, 2014 and December, 2014 took place on account of the information that was secured by the accused by resorting to insider trading in conspiracy with A-1 who was the Additional Advocate-General at that time. He would submit that the petitioners herein did not purchase any lands during the said period from June, 2014 to December, 2014 and it is even the admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioners have purchased their lands only in the month of July, 2015 long after issuance of notification in the month of December, 2014 relating to the location of capital city at Amaravati and as such, nothing can be attributed to the 14 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 petitioners regarding alleged involvement in the insider trading and securing the information relating to location of the capital.
19) He would then contend that there is nothing to indicate either in the F.I.R. or in the preliminary enquiry report that the petitioners are associates of A-1, the former Additional Advocate-General, or that they got any association with A-1, to show that they are conspired with him in purchasing the said lands. He submits that the petitioners are private individuals wholly unconnected with the official acts and affairs of the Government and they have only purchased small extent of lands in their individual capacity with their own earnings for a valid consideration from the owners of the lands, who offered to sell the said lands to them, under registered sale deeds.
20) He then contends that as the purchase of land by the petitioners is long after issuance of official notification regarding location of capital city on 30.12.2014, the question of their securing clandestine information relating to location of capital and thereby purchasing the lands does not arise at all and nothing can be attributed to them in this regard. He submits that by the date of purchasing lands by these petitioners in the month of July, 2015, as the official notification was issued on 30.12.2014 declaring the area where the capital would be established, the entire public and the whole world knows about the area where the location of capital. He would also submit that even prior to issuance of official notification on 30.12.2014 15 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 also, the information is very much in the public domain as the proposal of the Government to locate the capital between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna was widely published in all newspapers. So, he submits that even prior to 30.12.2014 and subsequent to 30.12.2014 the entire information relating to location of capital is very much in the public domain and when the petitioners and others have purchased the lands in exercise of their constitutional right and legal right to acquire property, no criminal liability can be attributed to them in entering any such sale transactions.
21) He finally submits that the owners of the lands, who sold the same to the petitioners and their vendors no grievance whatsoever that they were cheated and they did not lodge any report with the Police and they also did not initiate any civil action in this regard. Therefore, he submits that the very registration of the F.I.R. on the basis of the report lodged by the de facto complainant, who is totally a stranger to the said sale transactions, is legally unsustainable and launching of criminal prosecution against the petitioners on the basis of the said report amounts to sheer abuse of process of Court. Therefore, he would pray for quash of the said F.I.R. registered against the petitioners.
22) He also contends that the petitioners, who hail from a very respectable family with high reputation in the society, have 16 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 been falsely implicated in this case to accomplish the ulterior motive of some persons with vested interest who engineered the fabrication of the report that was lodged with the ACB by setting up a stranger to the sale transactions as a de facto complainant and it is undoubtedly a malicious prosecution and it is liable to be quashed.
23) Per contra, learned Advocate-General appearing for the 1st respondent State would submit that the allegations set out in the F.I.R. disclose commission of a cognizable offence and as such, it is mandatory on the part of the concerned police to register a case as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari1. He would submit that even after lodging the F.I.R. on 07.09.2014, the D.G., ACB, AP, Vijayawada, without taking any hasty decision to register the F.I.R., ordered for preliminary enquiry and after the preliminary enquiry report was submitted, wherein it is stated that the facts disclose commission of a cognizable offence and it requires investigation, then only the DG, ACB, AP, Vijayawada, ordered to register the F.I.R. Therefore, he would submit that there is no legal infirmity in registering the F.I.R. in a case which discloses commission of a cognizable offence. So, he would submit that the case is at the nascent stage and the investigation cannot be foiled and thereby prayed for dismissal of these Criminal Petitions.
17
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
24) I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and leaned Advocate-General for the 1st respondent State and Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent de facto complainant.
25) Before adverting to the merits of the case to ascertain whether the allegations ascribed in the F.I.R. and the contents of the preliminary enquiry report prima facie constitute any offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC against these petitioners, it is essential to note the brief history relating to bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into two States of State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and the need to establish a capital city for the present State of Andhra Pradesh.
26) The State of Andhra Pradesh was established under States Reorganisation Act, 1956 with effect from 01.11.1956 consisting of three regions viz., Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana. The said State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into two States i.e. the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in the year 2014 under A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. The said Act, 2014 received the assent of the President on 01.03.2014. The appointed day for formation of the two States as per Act, 2014 under Section 4 of the said Act is 02.06.2014. Hyderabad which was the original capital of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh from 01.11.1956 was initially made a common capital 18 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 for ten years for both the States and thereafter it was made a capital exclusively for the State of Telangana. Sub-Section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, 2014 specified that there shall be a new capital for the State of Andhra Pradesh after the expiry of the said period of ten years. Therefore, the newly carved out State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 02.06.2014 has no capital for the State. So, it necessitated to build a capital city for the State of Andhra Pradesh.
27) In the General Assembly elections that took place in the year 2014, the Telugu Desam Party came into power. Sri N. Chandrababu Naidu was sworn as the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 09.06.2014. He made a public announcement that the new capital city would come in between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna. Accordingly, the Government has initiated process for establishing a new capital city for the State. After undertaking necessary exercise for the said purpose, the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (hereinafter called as "AP CRDA Act") was brought into force and it received the assent of the Governor on 29.12.2014 and was published on 30.12.2014 in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette for general information. The location of the capital at Amaravati between Krishna District and Guntur District has been notified as per the said publication in the official gazette on 30.12.2014. 19
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
28) In the backdrop of aforesaid factual scenario, the present F.I.R. came to be lodged, almost six years after declaration of the location of capital city and six years after the present sale transactions of the petitioners took place. As noticed supra while narrating the facts of the case in detail, the substratum of the prosecution case is that the information relating to exact location of capital city is a confidential information, which is known to only few officials in the Government and it was not a public information and A-1, who was an Additional Advocate- General at that time, was privy to the said information regarding location of the capital and he shared the said information unauthorisedly with other accused, who are his relatives and close associates and they purchased the lands in and around the capital region and there was a conspiracy between all the accused and they all indulged in insider trading and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
29) Therefore, the prosecution seeks to prosecute A-1 for the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w.13(2) of the P.C. Act and under Sections 409, 420 r/w.120-B of IPC and they seek to prosecute all other accused including the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC.
30) Thus, at the very out-set it is to be noticed that the dispute primarily relates to purchase of private lands by the petitioners from the lawful owners under various registered sale 20 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 deeds for a valid sale consideration. Therefore, it is a peculiar case where the prosecution seeks to criminalize private sale transactions relating to private individuals pertaining to private lands entered into between the petitioners as buyers of the lands and owners of the said lands as sellers, long back about six years ago, by invoking the concept of offence of insider trading applying the same to the facts of the present case and also on the ground that the petitioners as buyers of the lands did not disclose to the owners of the lands that the capital city is going to be located in the said area and thereby concealed the said material fact and cheated the owners of the lands. WHETHER A-1 IS PRIVY TO THE INFORMATION RELATING TO EXACT LOCATION OF CAPITAL CITY AND WHETHER HE DISCLOSED THE SAME TO THE PETITIONERS AND WHETHER THE PETITIONERS PURCHASED LANDS ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFORMATION:-
31) It is the version of the prosecution that A-1 was an Additional Advocate-General from 30.06.2014 and was an Advocate-General from 30.05.2016 and during his tenure as an Additional Advocate-General that he was privy to the information which is confidential in nature relating to exact location of capital region and instead of maintaining the confidentiality of the said information that he has shared and disclosed the said information to his family members, relatives and close associates and they purchased the lands based on the 21 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 said information. Therefore, there is criminal conspiracy between A-1 and the other accused.
32) Admittedly, A-1 was an Additional Advocate-General for the State of Andhra Pradesh from 30.06.2014 till 28.05.2016. He was an Advocate-General from 30.06.2016 onwards for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said period during which he worked as Advocate-General is not germane in the context to consider. Since the process relating to location of capital city took place during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014 when official notification to that effect was issued on 30.12.2014 and as the sale transactions in question took place between June, 2014 and December, 2014 and in the month of July, 2015 during which period A-1 was only an Additional Advocate-General, his tenure as an Additional Advocate-General from 30.06.2014 till 28.05.2016 alone is relevant in the context to consider. It is stated that as he was privy to the information which is confidential in nature relating to the location of capital city which took place during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014 and that he has disclosed the said information to his relatives and associates. As the entire case of the prosecution rests and predicates on the said ground to prosecute A-1 and also the other accused in the case, it is essential to ascertain whether as an Additional Advocate- General during the said period of time, by the very nature of his duties as an Additional Advocate-General, he has any 22 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 constitutional function or statutory duty to involve or be part of any decision making process in respect of location of capital city which is the main function of the Legislature and Executive of the State Government.
33) In this context, it is very much relevant to note at the very outset that appointment of Additional Advocate-General for the State is not contemplated under Article 165 of the Constitution of India or in the scheme of the Constitution of India. Article 165 deals with appointment of Advocate-General for the State. It reads thus:
"165. Advocate-General for the State.-- (1) The Governor of each State shall appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed a Judge of a High Court to be Advocate-General for the State.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
(3) The Advocate-General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, and shall receive such remuneration as the Governor may determine."
34) Therefore, a plain reading of the aforesaid Article makes it explicit that appointment of only an Advocate-General for the State is contemplated and it does not contemplate any appointment of Additional Advocate-General.
35) As per the settled law, even though appointment of an Additional Advocate-General is not contemplated under Article 165 of the Constitution of India, the State can appoint any 23 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 lawyer on its behalf to conduct any case or to defend it and the State can designate any such lawyer with whatever designation the State may propose including by conferring designation on him as an Additional Advocate-General.
36) Whether such Advocate, who is appointed by the State and designated as an Additional Advocate-General, is competent to discharge any constitutional duties and statutory functions on behalf of the State or whether his role is confined only to appear on behalf of the State to conduct cases or to defend the State in the cases before the Court or not, is the crucial question which assumes significance in the present context.
37) Therefore, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether A-1 during his tenure as Additional Advocate General from the period from 30-06-2014 to 28-05- 2016, was actually involved in any decision making process relating to location and establishment of the capital city and in the process of preparing draft bill for bringing the enactment i.e. the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short, the "A.P. C.R.D.A. Act") into force or not.
38) Admittedly, accused No.1 was not the Advocate-General during the period when decision as to where capital city is to be located was taken between June to December, 2014 by the Government of the State and when A.P. C.R.D.A. Act was passed by the State Legislature and was notified on 30.12.2014. He was only an Additional Advocate-General during the said 24 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 period of time. So, he has no other authority under law as Additional Advocate General to perform any constitutional or statutory duties or functions attached to the office of the Advocate General. It is only the Advocate General who holds a constitutional office under Article 165 of the Constitution of India and he alone performs the duties and functions which are constitutional and statutory for the State which are attached to his office.
39) The legal position whether an Additional Advocate General holds any constitutional office and whether he is competent to perform any constitutional and statutory duties and functions is not res nova and the same has been succinctly explained and dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of M.T. Khan v. Govt. of A.P3.
40) Considering the true import of Article 165 of the Constitution of India which deals with the appointment of an Advocate General and the functions to be performed by him, the Apex Court while interpreting Article 165 of the Constitution of India held that the constitutional scheme is that it envisages appointment of only one Advocate General and the appointment of an Additional Advocate General is not contemplated under Article 165 of the Constitution of India.
3 (2004) 2 SCC 267 25 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
41) However, it is held by the Apex Court that even though in the scheme of the Constitution it is not provided for appointment of an Additional Advocate General that the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 is competent to appoint a lawyer of its choice and designate him in such manner as it may deem fit and proper and once it is held that any such person is designated as Additional Advocate General that he is not authorized to perform any constitutional and statutory functions, but he can discharge other functions as an Advocate appointed by the State while appearing on behalf of the State in the Court to conduct cases on behalf State or to defend the State in other cases.
42) Therefore, the legal position is now manifest from the exposition of law made by the Apex Court in the above judgment that even though the Government of a State as a litigant can appoint as many lawyers as it likes on its behalf and for the said purpose, the State is not prohibited from conferring such designation on such legal practitioners as it may deem fit and proper and it can designate any lawyer as Additional Advocate General, the said Additional Advocate General cannot discharge any constitutional and statutory functions.
43) Even Clause (2) of Article 165 of the Constitution makes the said position very clear. It enjoins that it shall be the duty of only Advocate General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties 26 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force. For better appreciation, Clause (2) of Article 165 of the Constitution of India is reproduced hereunder and it reads thus:
"165. Advocate-General for the State.--
(1) ......................................................... (2) It shall be the duty of the Advocate-General to give advice to the Government of the State upon such legal matters, and to perform such other duties of a legal character, as may from time to time be referred or assigned to him by the Governor, and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
44) Therefore, when Article 165 and the aforesaid legal position enunciated by the Apex Court while interpreting Article 165, makes it explicitly clear that an Advocate who is appointed by the Government of a State is designated as Additional Advocate General, he has no right or power to discharge any constitutional or statutory duties and functions on behalf of the State and his right is confined only to conduct or defend the cases on behalf of the State in the Court. The said power to perform constitutional and statutory duties is exclusively conferred only on the Advocate General and it is his exclusive duty to give advice to the Government of the State upon legal matters and to perform other duties of legal character which are assigned to him by the Governor and to discharge the functions 27 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 conferred on him by or under the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force.
45) When that be the clear legal position, A-1 who was only an Additional Advocate General during the relevant period from 30-06-2014 to 28-05-2016 had absolutely no opportunity to involve himself in any statutory or constitutional functions/ affairs to be performed by the State or by the office of the Advocate General so as to hold that he is involved in the decision making process relating to exact location of capital and had an opportunity to know the information relating to exact location of the capital city, which according to the prosecution is a confidential information and that he is privy to the said information. He has absolutely no role to play in the decision making process relating to location of capital city or in bringing A.P. C.R.D.A. Act into force.
46) There is absolutely nothing to indicate either in the F.I.R or in the preliminary enquiry report as to how A-1 was privy to the said confidential information. Therefore, owing to the very nature of duties and functions of an Additional Advocate General who has to only conduct or defend cases on behalf of the State, it is to be held that he has absolutely no opportunity to be privy to any such information, which is within the exclusive knowledge of the officials of the State Government and other authorities at the helm of the affairs of the State Government.
28
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
47) The version of the prosecution that it is in the common knowledge in the advocate circles that A-1 has close acquaintance with the then Chief Minister Sri N.Chandrababu Naidu and his group in Telugu Desam Party and as such, he is privy to the said information cannot be countenanced. It is a vague allegation and too hypothetical in nature. No criminal liability can be fastened in this regard against A-1 on surmise and conjecture. Political leaders would be in public life and many people including lawyers and other professionals would have some acquaintance with them. It cannot be inferred or presumed or held that on account of such acquaintance that A- 1 as an Additional Advocate-General was privy to the said information. As noted supra, it is a vague allegation which was hypothetically made on supposition. Therefore, it cannot be countenanced.
48) The said version as per contents of the F.I.R. and the preliminary enquiry report shows that the de facto complainant has only overheard from the advocate circles that accused No.1 had close acquaintance with the then Chief Minister N.Chandrababu Naidu and his group in Telugu Desam Party and on the basis of the said information which was overheard by him that it is alleged that accused No.1 is privy to the information relating to location of capital city. So, it is clear that even the de facto complainant has no personal knowledge of the said fact. Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated on the 29 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 basis of any such information which was overheard by the de facto complainant and on the basis of mere conjecture and surmise and on the basis of vague allegations. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Arun Kumar Agarwal4 at para 15 of the judgment held as follows:
".....The acts of persons will not be subject to criminal investigation unless a crime is reported and have been committed or reasonable suspicion thereto arises. On mere conjecture or surmise as a flight of fancy that some crime might have been committed, somewhere, by somebody but the crime is not known, the persons involved in it or the place of crime unknown, cannot be termed to be a reasonable basis at all for starting criminal investigation."
49) Therefore, A-1 in his official capacity as an Additional Advocate-General is not directly connected with any affairs of the State relating to identifying the area where the capital city is to be located. Obviously, he being an Additional Advocate- General is not directly connected with the process of decision making relating to the location of the area where the capital is to be established. It is not at all part of his official duty. At that point of time, there was an Advocate General for the State to discharge any constitutional or statutory functions, if any, entrusted to him and to advice the Government of the State. It is not the version of the prosecution as can be seen from the F.I.R. or from the preliminary enquiry report that A-1 was either directly or indirectly involved in the process of identifying the 4 (2000) 1 SCC 210 30 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 area where the capital city is to be located. Therefore, unless it is prima facie established either from the allegations set-out in the F.I.R. which is a detailed report or from the findings of the preliminary enquiry report that A-1 had any direct role to play in decision making process relating to establishment of capital and location of its area, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning or imagination that he was privy to the said information which is exclusively within the knowledge of the concerned Government officials who are dealing with the said issue. Therefore, when it is not shown that he was privy to the said information, the question of divulging the same or sharing the same with his associates or family members does not arise at all. It purely appears to be a figment of imagination of the de facto complainant.
50) Therefore, there is absolutely no material whatsoever to prima facie establish that accused No.1 was privy to any such information relating to location of capital city. So, it is to be held that A-1 is not privy to the said information and that the petitioners did not buy their lands on the basis of the said information.
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AND A LEGAL RIGHT:-
51) Earlier Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India are part of Chapter III of the Constitution dealing with fundamental rights of a citizen. Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed to 31 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 the Indian citizen a right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 provided that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law". Therefore, in view of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution, right to property was part of fundamental rights of a citizen. Subsequently, by 44th constitutional amendment both Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were repealed with effect from 20.06.1979. So, the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right. However, the right to acquire property continues to be a constitutional right, legal right and also a human right. Provision akin to Article 31 has been incorporated under Article 300-A in Chapter-IV of the Constitution under the rubric "right to property".
52) The Supreme Court, in the case of D.B. Basnett v. The Collector, East District, Gangtok, Sikkim5 held at para 14 of the judgment as follows:
"We may note that even though rights in land are no more a fundamental right, still it remains a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India."
53) In Tuka Ram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation6 the Supreme Court reiterated that right to property is now considered to be, not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. Though it is not a basic feature of the constitution or a 5 Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2011 dated 02.03.2020 6 (2013) 1 SCC 353 32 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 fundamental right, the right to property is considered very much to be part of new dimensions where human rights are considered to be in realm of individual‟s rights such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment etc., and such rights are gaining an even greater multifaceted dimension.
54) Therefore, when the petitioners herein, as citizens of this country, have in exercise of their constitutional right and legal right to acquire property purchased the said lands under registered sale deeds for valid consideration from the owners of the land which are willingly sold by them, the prosecution is not justified in seeking to criminalize the said private sale transactions entered into by private individuals in respect of private lands. Therefore, the present prosecution under the aforesaid sections of law is not maintainable on this ground also.
CONCEPT OF OFFENCE OF INSIDER TRADING AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE:
55) As regards the concept of offence of insider trading is concerned, a study of history and origin of the offence of insider trading reveals that the said offence of insider trading basically relates to trading of public company‟s stocks or other securities (such as bonds or stock options) based on material, nonpublic information about the affairs of the company. As it is found that the persons who are connected with the affairs of the 33 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 company have been sharing by disclosing the material and nonpublic information relating to the affairs of the company with other persons which is resulting into severe loss to the company and its share holders, various countries brought enactments to curb the said offence of insider trading in the field of stock market. Therefore, insider trading is essentially an offence relating to trading of public company‟s stocks or other securities such as bonds or stock options based on material, nonpublic information about the affairs of the company. The said offence of insider trading has absolutely nothing to do with the sale and purchase of private lands which is an immovable property which are private sale transactions between private individuals which are wholly unrelated to the affairs of the stock market business.
56) Similarly, on par with the other countries, India also brought into force the SEBI Act, 1992, to curb the offence of insider trading in the field of stock market in India. Therefore, the insider trading in the field of stock market alone is an offence according to Sections 12-A and 15-G of the SEBI Act, 1992. As per the above provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992, the offence of insider trading is said to be committed only when a person with access to nonpublic, price sensitive information about the securities of the company, subscribes, buys, sells, or deals, or agrees to do so or counsels another to do so as principal or agent. Therefore, insider trading is made only an 34 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 offence in India under SEBI Act, 1992, and it essentially deals with the sale and purchase of securities in stock market based on nonpublic material information. It is a special enactment which specifically and exclusively deals with the offences relating to sale of securities in stock market. Therefore, Sections 12-A and 15-G of the SEBI Act, 1992 cannot be read into or imported into the provisions of the Indian Penal Code much less into Section 420 of IPC. The said offence of insider trading is totally alien to our criminal jurisprudence as per our Indian Penal Code. Insider trading is not at all made an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is not at all the intention of the Parliament to attribute any criminal liability to any person involved in such private sale transactions relating to immovable property in the guise of insider trading either under Section 420 of IPC or under any provisions in the scheme of IPC. Therefore, it is legally impermissible to prosecute the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC by applying the said concept of insider trading even contextually or relatively in the guise of the concept of insider trading in the facts and circumstances of the case.
57) In fact, while deciding earlier batch of Criminal Petitions in Crl.P.No.4819 of 2020 and batch, in a case arising out of similar allegations with identical facts where the State sought to prosecute the accused therein by applying the said concept of offence of insider trading in purchasing lands in the capital 35 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 region area, this Court after elaborately discussing the law relating to the concept of offence of insider trading and its applicability to the offences under the Indian Penal Code and particularly, to Section 420 of IPC, ruled out the application of concept of insider trading to the facts of the case and clearly held that it was only an offence under the SEBI Act, 1992, relating to purchase of securities in stock market based on nonpublic material information and held that the same cannot be applied to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC or any other offences in the scheme of Indian Penal Code.
58) The said findings recorded by this Court relating to the offence of insider trading are confirmed by the Apex Court in the appeal preferred by the State in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636 of 2021 and batch, as per order dated 19.07.2021. Therefore, it is no more open to the prosecution to contend that the concept of insider trading applies either relatively or contextually to the present facts of the case. So, the prosecution cannot invoke the said concept of insider trading which is essentially an offence under the SEBI Act, 1992 to prosecute the petitioners herein for the offence under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC. Therefore, the said contention of the prosecution is hereby rejected.
APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 420 R/W.120-B OF IPC TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WHETHER ANY SUCH 36 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 OFFENCE IS CONSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OR NOT:
59) While Section 420 of IPC deals with the punishment for the offence of cheating, Section 415 IPC defines the offence of cheating and it reads thus:
"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".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
60) A reading of Section 415 of IPC which defines the offence of cheating makes it manifest that the necessary ingredients which are essential to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC are: (i) there must be a false representation said to have been made by the accused to the person deceived knowing fully well that the said representation made by the accused is false at the time of making it; (ii) the accused must induce the deceived person fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to him or to any person based on the said false representation made by the accused; (iii) and consequently it must result into loss or damage to the said person deceived, in body, mind or property. Therefore, considering the said 37 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 ingredients contemplated under Section 415 of IPC, it is obvious that deception is the quintessence of the offence of cheating. So, to hold a person to be guilty of cheating another person, there must be an allegation that a false representation was made by the accused to the person deceived knowing fully well that the said representation is false to his knowledge at the time of making it and thereby he must induce the person deceived to deliver any property to him or to any person and consequently the person so deceived must sustain damage or harm to him either in body, mind, reputation or to any property.
61) Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have made any false representation to the owners of the lands at the time of selling the lands by them to the petitioners and thereby induced them to deliver any property to them. So, the above basic ingredients which are essential to constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC are conspicuously absent in the facts of the case.
62) It is also relevant to note that certain negative terms like dishonest, fraudulent etc. are used to attribute criminal liability to a person to hold him guilty for the offence of cheating. So, no act can be construed as an offence under Section 415 of IPC unless they are committed dishonestly and fraudulently. Considering the cardinal principle of criminal law that there can be no offence unless it is done with requisite mens rea i.e. guilty intention, the above qualifying words like dishonestly and 38 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 fraudulently are used in the definition of the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC.
63) Section 24 IPC defines the term "dishonestly" and as per the said definition, when anything was done with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another person, it is said that the same has been done "dishonestly".
64) Wrongful gain and wrongful loss are again defined in Section 23 of IPC. As per the said definition, wrongful gain is the gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled and wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person, who is losing it is legally entitled.
65) Thus, a comprehensive definition of wrongful gain and wrongful loss under Section 23 of IPC, clearly indicates that unless an act was done by a person to have a wrongful gain for himself by unlawful means of property to which he is not legally entitled, it cannot be said that he had any wrongful gain. Similarly, unless a person has committed an act by unlawful means of property to cause loss to a person losing it is legally entitled, it cannot be said that he has committed such wrongful loss. In the instant case, as per the facts of the case, absolutely no act was committed by the petitioners to have wrongful gain for them by unlawful means of property to which they are not 39 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 legally entitled. Similarly they did not commit any act of causing wrongful loss of property to any person or to their vendors in respect of the property to which they are legally entitled.
66) The owners of the land offered their lands to sell the same and the petitioners have accepted the said offer and as per the said contract, the petitioners have purchased the said lands for a valid consideration which are willingly sold by its owners under registered sale deeds. Therefore, no act was committed by the petitioners to have any wrongful gain by unlawful means of property to the petitioners to which they are not legally entitled and no act is committed by them to cause wrongful loss to any person or their vendors/owners. It is purely a genuine sale transaction, validly took place as per the terms of the contract between both the parties for a valid consideration under registered sale deeds. So, no dishonest act is involved in these transactions.
67) Similarly, Section 25 of IPC defines the term "fraudulently" and as per the said definition, a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
68) The literal meaning of the word "defraud" is almost synonym to „deception‟ and „hoodwink‟ etc. When the petitioners have acquired the property lawfully by paying valid 40 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 sale consideration to the sellers under registered sale deeds, it cannot be said under any stretch of reasoning that there is any element of fraud or deception is involved in the said transaction.
69) Therefore, when the facts of the case are viewed in the light of the aforesaid definition of the term "dishonestly" under Section 24 of IPC, and "wrongful gain" and "wrongful loss"
under Section 23 of IPC, and the term "fraudulently" under Section 25 of IPC, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that no dishonest act was fraudulently committed by the petitioners relating to the said sale transactions. They have acquired the property by a lawful means to which they are legally entitled under registered sale deeds. They did not deprive the owners of the said lands of their property by unlawful means to cause any wrongful loss to them. Therefore, absolutely no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out from the facts of the case.
70) The argument addressed on behalf of the prosecution that as per the explanation appended to Section 415 of IPC which says that "a dishonest concealment of fact is a deception within the meaning of Section 415 IPC" and as the accused at the time of purchasing the lands did not disclose to the owners that capital is going to be located in their area, that it amounts to dishonest concealment of fact and it amounts to cheating under Section 415 of IPC also holds no water in the facts and circumstances of the case. The prosecution sought to invoke 41 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 Section 55(5)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act also to convince the Court that buyer has duty to disclose the said fact to the seller and as the same is not disclosed that it amounts to offence of cheating. The said argument has been already addressed before this Court in the previous cases decided in Crl.P.No.4819 of 2020 and batch. This Court after elaborate discussion regarding the legal position, with reference to the decided case law on the issue, categorically held that buyers have no legal obligation to disclose any latent advantages that they may derive from buying the lands and that the information contemplated under Section 55(5)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act does not embrace within it the information relating to possible location of capital in the area where the lands are situated. In the commentaries on the Law of Transfer of Property Act authored by a renowned jurist Sri G.C.V. Subbarao, in its Fourth Edition at page No.1197, under the caption "Buyer‟s liabilities before completion of sale" while dealing with the requirement of disclosure of facts materially increasing the value under Section 55(5)(a) of the T.P. Act, it is stated as under:
"Latent advantages need not be disclosed: A buyer is not bound to disclose latent advantages or communicate to his vendor facts which may influence his own judgment in purchasing the property. In Fox vs. Mackreth ((1788) 2 Bro. C.C. 400 = 29 E. R. 224), A knowing that there was a coal-mine in the estate of B of which he knew B was ignorant entered into a contract to purchase the estate of B for the price of the estate, without considering the mine. It was held that the contract could not be set aside on the 42 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 ground of fraud since B, as the buyer, was not obliged from the nature of the contract, to apprise the seller of the existence of the mine."
71) Thus, this judgment in Fox vs. Mackreth7 provides a complete answer to the contention raised that the petitioners as buyers are bound to disclose to the sellers that the capital city is going to come in the area where the lands are located while purchasing the said lands and non-disclosure of the same amounts to dishonest concealment of fact as contemplated under Explanation appended to Section 415 IPC.
72) Therefore, even the said contention that as the petitioners did not disclose the fact to the owners that the capital city is going to be located in their area that it amounts to concealment of fact as per the explanation appended to Section 415 of IPC and it amounts to cheating has no merit and it is rejected.
73) The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also in the order dismissing the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636 of 2021 and batch, arising out of the common order, dated 19.01.2021, passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4819 of 2020 and batch, held at page 7 as follows:
"..... There was also no question of loss being caused to the sellers or any cheating by the buyers because neither by law nor by a legal contract, the buyers were obliged to disclose the likelihood of the location of capital city, which facts were already in public domain. Moreover, there was no such pre- 7 (1788) 2 Bro. C.C. 400 = 29 E. R. 224 43 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 existing legal relationship between the buyers and the sellers for which, the buyers were bound to protect the interest of the sellers."
74) Even otherwise, the facts of the case disclose as per the details of sale transactions furnished in the tabular form annexed to the preliminary enquiry report, the petitioners herein i.e. A-8 purchased the lands in the year 2015 under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.2015, A-10 also purchased the lands in the year 2015 under registered sale deeds dated 28.08.2015, 29.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 and A-11 purchased the lands in the year 2015 under registered sale deeds, dated 29.07.2015 and 30.07.2015 respectively. Therefore, it is evident that all the sale transactions relating to these petitioners, who are A-8, A-10 and A-11, under the aforesaid sale deeds took place in the month of July, 2015 long after the official notification notifying the location of capital area was issued on 30.12.2014. By the time the petitioners herein have purchased the lands in the month of July, 2015, the information relating to location of capital was officially made public and it is known to one and all. It is no more a secret or confidential information. It was officially declared by way of the said notification dated 30.12.2014 as to where the capital is going to be located. Therefore, the question of A-1, who is privy to the said confidential information, sharing the same with the petitioners herein and thereby the petitioners purchasing the said lands on the basis of the said information does not arise at 44 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 all. It is absolutely a false allegation. For the same reason, the question of A-1 entering into conspiracy with the petitioners by sharing the said confidential information and committing an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC by all of them also does not arise at all. The very fact that the petitioners have purchased the lands in the month of July, 2015 as per the aforesaid sale deeds completely belies the said version of the prosecution.
75) Simply because the petitioners have purchased the lands from the persons who bought the same during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014, nothing can be attributed to the petitioners in commission of any of the aforesaid offences. The persons who purchased the lands during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014, who became lawful owners of the same by virtue of the registered sale deeds executed in their favour are entitled to sell the same to meet their legal necessities. The recitals of the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners herein clinchingly establish that as their vendors are in need of money to meet their legal necessities and as the said lands are not profitable to them that they have offered to sell the same to the petitioners and the petitioners have purchased the same.
76) It is important to note that the original owners of the land who sold the same to the vendors of the petitioners during the period between July and December, 2014 have absolutely no 45 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 grievance and they did not come forward at any point of time stating that they were cheated. Even the vendors of the petitioners have no such grievance. So, the de facto complainant cannot legitimately complain being a stranger to the sale transactions that the owners of the lands were cheated by the petitioners.
77) Therefore, no element of criminality or cheating or criminal conspiracy as contemplated under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC is involved in the said sale transactions. They are all genuine sale transactions that took place validly under registered sale deeds. The prosecution now cannot seek to criminalize the said private sale transactions relating to the sale and purchase of private lands of private individuals. EVEN DURING THE PERIOD FROM JUNE TO DECEMBER, 2014, THE SAID INFORMATION RELATING TO LOCATION OF CAPITAL IS VERY MUCH IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN:-
78) It is also relevant to note here that even during the period from June, 2014 to December, 2014, the information relating to the proposal of the Government to locate capital city between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna was also in public domain. The evidence in the form of newspaper clippings which are produced by the petitioners bears ample testimony of the fact that the information relating to decision of the Government to locate the capital city for the State of Andhra Pradesh would be between Krishna District and 46 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 Guntur District by the side of River Krishna is very much in the public domain. The Chief Minister of the State, who was sworn on 09.06.2014, immediately after the swearing-in-ceremony, declared publicly that the capital city is coming between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna. This news was widely published in all widely circulated Telugu and English newspapers. On 10.06.2014 it was published in English newspaper with the headlines "AP capital near Guntur, Naidu says he wants capital between Guntur and Vijayawada". The news reads as follows:
"It is official. The new capital of Andhra Pradesh will come up between Vijayawada and Guntur. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu announced this on Monday (i.e. on 09.06.2014).
Speaking to the media at his residence, Mr.Naidu said that if the capital comes up between Vijayawada and Guntur it will develop like Hyderabad city."
It was also published in Andhra Jyothi, Telugu daily newspaper, on 10.06.2014. Similarly, again on 02.07.2014 it was published in Eenadu, Telugu daily newspaper, which is another widely circulated local news paper, that the Andhra Pradesh Government is contemplating to establish the new capital for the State would be established by the side of River Krishna, making Amaravati as main centre. The same news has been published in Times of India, English newspaper, on 02.07.2014 with the headline "AP capital in Amaravati? On 23.07.2014 also a news was published in Sakshi, Telugu daily newspaper, which is another widely circulated newspaper in the State, with the 47 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 caption "Capital will be in between Krishna and Guntur and it is the suitable place for building capital city said by Chairman of Advisory Committee Narayana. On 24.09.2014 again it is published in Eenadu, Telugu daily newspaper, that the capital city would be on ring road and it may be anywhere throughout the length of 184 K.Ms as the farmers are now coming forward and that 30,000 acres are necessary and the aerial photograph of Putrajaya Nagara was also published in the newspaper.
79) It is important to note that on 30.10.2014, the Economic Times published the news that the Andhra Pradesh will have a "riverfront" capital on the south side of river Krishna as the State Government ended months of suspense and speculation today by announcing that 17 villages in the existing Guntur District would be developed as new capital city. It is also stated that it is for the first time that the Telugu Desam Party lead government had come out with a clear location of the new capital as it had so far been saying it would come within Vijayawada region. Most importantly it is to be noted that the names of the proposed villages that would form part of the new capital area are published in the above news paper stating that Neerukonda, Kurugallu and Nidamarru in Mangalagiri Mandal; Borupalem, Tulluru, Nelapadu, Nekkallu, Sakhamuru, Mandadam, Malkapuram, Velagapudi, Mudalingayapalem, Uddandaraya-palem, Lingayapalem, 48 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 Rayapudi, Apparajupalem and Dondapadu in Tulluru Mandal would form part of capital area.
80) In Deccan Chronicle, English daily newspaper, it was published on 31.10.2014, stating that in tune with the dream of Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu of building a "riverfront capital", the Cabinet sub-committee, on land pooling, met here on Thursday, identified 17 villages - 14 in Tulluru Mandal and three in Mangalagiri of Guntur District and most of the villages that will be formed part of the A.P. capital on the banks of the river Krishna.
81) Thus, even from June, 2014 till 30.12.2014 also, on which day official notification relating to location of capital was issued, the news relating to the location of capital city has been widely published in various newspapers from time to time regarding possible location of capital city between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna. The prosecution also did not deny or dispute the fact relating to publication of the said news items in various newspapers as per the material produced by the petitioners. Therefore, the information relating to proposal of the Government to locate capital city between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna is not at all a confidential or secret information and it is very much in the public domain known to not only the petitioners but also the owners/sellers of the land and in fact to the entire world. When that be the case, it cannot be said that 49 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 A1 being privy to the said secret information has shared the same with his relatives and associates and to the petitioners herein and based on said information that all the accused herein have purchased the said lands. The said contention has no merit at all.
82) Therefore, when the vendors of the petitioners have purchased the lands probably on the basis of the said information which is in public domain as per the news published in various newspapers, the subsequent sale of the said lands to the petitioners herein in the month of July, 2015 for valid sale consideration under registered sale deeds cannot be impeached on the ground that there is any element of cheating involved in it or conspiracy is involved in it. The facts of the case absolutely do not admit commission of any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. Even stretching the reasoning to the extent of straining it, and viewed from any angle, the facts of the case do not constitute any offence under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC.
83) Even as regards the offence under Section 120-B of IPC is concerned, Section 120-A of IPC defines what is criminal conspiracy. It reads thus:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:50
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
84) A plain reading of the aforesaid Section shows that there must be an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done: (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means. Therefore, an agreement between two persons to do an illegal act or to do an act which is not illegal by illegal means alone is designated as an offence of criminal conspiracy. It is also clear from the proviso to Section 120-A of IPC that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act.
Section 43 of IPC defines illegal act. As per the said definition, the word "illegal" is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action.
85) As per the findings recorded by this Court supra, after elaborate discussion regarding the question of fact and question of law based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held in no uncertain terms that no offence whatsoever is 51 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 committed by the petitioners or by any other accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, when there is no offence at all that was committed in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of the petitioners entering into an agreement either with A-1 or other accused for the purpose of doing an illegal act or for doing an act which is not illegal by illegal means does not arise at all. As this Court held supra that no offence was constituted whatsoever under Section 420 of IPC, as a corollary, it is to be held that there was no attempt made by the petitioners in agreement with any other person to do an illegal act or to commit an offence or to do an act which is not illegal by illegal means.
86) To constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC, as defined under Section 120-A of IPC, the facts of the case should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or committing an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. A few bits here and there on which prosecution relies on cannot be knitted together for the purpose of making out an offence under Section 120-B of IPC as has been done by the prosecution in the present case. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts allegedly done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. Since, it is found from the facts of the case that no offence itself is made out from the facts of the case, there cannot be any offence of criminal conspiracy to commit any offence. 52
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
87) Therefore, the facts of the case as per the allegations set out either in the F.I.R. or in the preliminary enquiry report do not make out or constitute any offence punishable under Section 420 r/w.120-B of IPC against the petitioners herein.
88) It is relevant to note that the F.I.R. registered against A-1 for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w.13(2) of the PC Act and under Sections 409, 420 r/w.120-B of IPC was quashed by this Court in the Writ Petition filed by him in W.P.No.16468 of 2020. Therefore, when it is found that A-1 did not commit any offence of criminal misconduct as alleged and he was not privy to any such information relating to location of capital and when he did not disclose the same to any person and to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be made liable for any offence under Section 420 r/w.120-B of IPC. Further, similar F.I.R. registered against some other persons based on similar allegations and identical facts in Crime No.49 of 2020 of CID Police Station, AP, Amaravati of Mangalagiri, was also quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4819 of 2020 and batch on 19.01.2021, which was also confirmed by the Apex Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2636 of 2021 and batch preferred by the State affirming the findings of this Court recorded in the said common order, the petitioners against whom similar allegations are made and who are similarly placed are also entitled for quash of F.I.R.
53
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
89) At the cost of repetition, it is to be held that the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra in the case of State of Karnataka v. Arun Kumar Agarwal4 at para.15 of the judgment held that the acts of persons will not be subject to criminal investigation unless a crime is reported and has been committed or reasonable suspicion thereto arises. On mere conjecture or surmise as a flight of fancy that some crime might have been committed, somewhere, by somebody but the crime is not known, the persons involved in it or the place of crime unknown, cannot be termed to be a reasonable basis at all for starting criminal investigation.
90) It is further held, "the attempt made in this case appears to us to be in the nature of blind shot fired in the dark without even knowing whether there is a prey at all. That may create sound and fury but not result in hunting down the prey."
91) The Apex Court also time and gain has examined the scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and laid down several principles which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy8 held that the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of 8 (1977) 2 SCC 699 54 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
92) Similarly, another three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa9 by analyzing the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. held that the power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto.
9 (2002) 3 SCC 89 55 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
93) Also held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment.
94) Most importantly, it is relevant to note in the present context that the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar10 held at para No.7 as follows:
"7. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. ..."
95) At para.15, the Apex Court further held as follows:
"15........ If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. ..........."
96) In the instant case, the de facto complainant, who is a third party and who is a stranger to the sale transactions made a complaint.
97) Therefore, in view of the above, ground Nos.1 to 3 and 5 enumerated in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal11 10 (2009) 8 SCC 751 11 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 = 1982 CriLJ 527 56 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 squarely apply to the present facts of the case. As the allegations set out in the F.I.R. do not prima facie constitute or make out any offence against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC much less any offences for which the F.I.R. was registered, the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.
SINCE INSTANCES OF IMPLICATING INNOCENT PERSONS WHO PURCHASED LANDS NEAR THE CAPITAL REGION IN FALSE CRIMINAL CASES ARE ON RISE, THERE IS NEED TO CURB THE SAME AND TO DEAL WITH THE PERSONS LODGING SUCH FALSE REPORTS ADEQUATELY ACCORDING TO LAW:-
98) Before parting with the cases, it requires a mention that it is noticed from the criminal cases being registered which are being questioned before this Court that instances of registering false criminal cases and implicating innocent persons who purchased lands at the capital region on the basis of the information that is available in public domain has been on rise and thereby persecuting the innocent persons by false prosecution. This Court previously has dealt with several criminal petitions filed by several accused challenging launching of criminal proceedings against them in respect of lands purchased by them at the capital region in exercise of their constitutional right and legal right to acquire property and this Court after considering legal validity of the said criminal proceedings, quashed the F.I.R. registered against several 57 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 persons. Now again, this is yet another set of cases came up before this Court seeking quash of criminal proceedings initiated on the same allegations based on identical facts in respect of the purchase of lands by the petitioners and other accused in exercise of their constitutional right and legal right to acquire property as citizens of this country. A careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of these cases clearly show that some modus operandi is being adopted by initially making some strangers to the sale transactions who are nowhere related to the lands in question or to the said sale transactions, lodge report with the police with some concocted version with vague details on unfounded allegations and thereafter, a preliminary enquiry is being conducted nominally and on the basis of the said report lodged by a stranger and the preliminary enquiry report, cases are being registered against innocent persons on some imaginary grounds that there was insider trading and there was cheating and conspiracy etc. without even examining the legal position whether any such offences are made out from the facts of the case by the Investigating Officer and the police concerned. This is resulting into grave injustice to the innocent persons, who are being persecuted by such malicious criminal proceedings. The instant case is another classic example of such nefarious design.
58
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021
99) It is to be noted that the petitioners herein as per the case pleaded by them in their petitions and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners hail from a very respectable family with considerable and high reputation in the society. They are only private individuals wholly unconnected with the official acts and affairs of the Government. They are not associated with any officials at the helm of affairs in the Government. They have only purchased lands from private individuals for a valid consideration under registered sale deeds purely in exercise of their right to acquire property which is a constitutional right and a legal right. They have also purchased the properties long after issuance of official notification on 30.12.2014 notifying the capital region between Krishna District and Guntur District by the side of River Krishna. They purchased the lands under registered sale deeds in the last week of July, 2015, by which time, the information relating to location of capital was officially made public on account of official gazette notification issued on 30.12.2014 to that effect. Yet, the petitioners have been falsely dragged into this criminal case and they have been implicated in the case. Only a vague allegation was made in the F.I.R. that they are the beneficiaries of the said sale transactions. Except the said allegation, no other allegation is made against them. On the basis of the said vague allegation, the F.I.R. was registered against them. No enquiry was conducted by the Dy.S.P., ACB, Guntur, to ascertain as to how they have committed any such offence by 59 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 entering into the said sale transactions in the preliminary enquiry. Except stating that they are the beneficiaries of the said sale transactions, nothing could be culled out even from the preliminary enquiry report as to how the petitioners are liable for criminal prosecution. No nexus between the petitioners and A-1 was also prima facie established in the preliminary enquiry report to show that they are associates of A-1. So, the Dy.S.P., ACB, Guntur, conducted enquiry in a most irresponsible way and in a casual manner and erroneously held in the preliminary enquiry report that a cognizable offence is disclosed. Just for the simple reason that the petitioners have purchased lands like any other citizen in exercise of their constitutional right and legal right, in the capital region, they have been targeted and falsely roped in to this case and they have been falsely implicated to malign their reputation and the reputation of their family members in the estimation of the public. The Court seriously deprecates the false implication of the petitioners on the basis of vague material placed before the Investigating Agency. The petitioners are found to be absolutely innocent. Implicating innocent persons in criminal cases would certainly create any amount of mental torture and agony to them till the cases are disposed of exonerating them from criminal liability. The innocent petitioners have to undergo unnecessary trauma and agony and the ordeal of being accused in criminal case for all this length of time. They have to rush to the Court in vindication of their honour and innocence and to 60 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 seek justice. The mental agony undergone by them would be really inexplicable.
100) Reputation, liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the court zealously guards them to protect them.
101) Therefore, the present criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are to be regarded as an attempt made to traduce the petitioners and their family members. In the said circumstances, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are frivolous which have the effect of denigrating the reputation of the petitioners and the reputation of their family members.
102) The de facto complainant is solely responsible for initiating the said frivolous criminal proceedings against the petitioners and other accused. A.C.B. police concerned are also equally responsible for launching the said frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Machinery of criminal law cannot be misused to malign innocent people to accomplish ulterior motives of the de facto complainant or the persons behind him by lodging false reports to implicate innocent people in criminal cases. It is clear that taking advantage of legal position that any person can set the criminal law into motion and not necessarily by the aggrieved person, that the de facto complainant has lodged the present report with 61 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 the police. Thus, the process of law and court has been badly abused by the de facto complainant. In fact, owing to the fact that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this criminal case to persecute them by implicating them in false criminal case, the petitioners are entitled to claim adequate damages against the de facto complainant. However, as they did not claim any such damages or compensation in their petitions and as this Court in other batch of writ petitions arising out of the same crime left open to the petitioner therein to claim damages, this Court deems it appropriate in these petitions also to leave it open to the petitioners granting liberty to them to claim damages/ compensation against the de facto complainant and other concerned for launching false and frivolous criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
DENOUEMENT:
103) To sum up the upshot of above discussion is that A-1 while holding the office of an Additional Advocate-General has no authority to discharge any constitutional or statutory duties and functions and he has no role to play in the decision making process in locating the area where the capital is to be established and in bringing into force the A.P. C.R.D.A. Act, 2014. He was not privy to any information relating to exact location of capital city. He had no role to play in the process of identifying the location to establish capital city to know the information regarding exact location of capital city. Therefore, 62 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 the question of A-1 disclosing the said information to the petitioners or to any other accused and that the petitioners purchasing the lands from the owners on the basis of the said information does not arise. There is no truth in the said allegation. Therefore, there is no conspiracy between A-1 and the petitioners and other accused as alleged by the prosecution. The information relating to location of capital is not a confidential information and it is very much in the public domain from June, 2014 itself. Right to acquire property is a constitutional right and legal right of the petitioners as citizens of the country. As they purchased the lands in exercise of their constitutional right and legal right and acquired property from the owners/sellers of the lands, who willingly and voluntarily sold the same to the petitioners for valid sale consideration under registered sale deeds, the said private sale transactions cannot be criminalized and no criminal liability can be attributed to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case to prosecute them for any such offences under Sections 420 r/w.120-B of IPC or under Section 409 of IPC. The concept of offence of insider trading which is essentially an offence in the field of stock market relating to selling and buying the securities and bonds cannot be applied to the offences under the Indian Penal Code and it cannot be read into Section 420 of IPC or into any provisions in the scheme of Indian Penal Code. It is totally alien to I.P.C. and it is unknown to our criminal jurisprudence under the Indian Penal Code. There is no 63 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 dishonest concealment of fact in respect of the sale transaction in question as contemplated under Explanation appended to Section 415 IPC. So, it does not amount to any deception constituting an offence under Section 420 of IPC. The sellers did not sustain any loss on account of the said sale transactions. So, no element of criminal liability is involved in the sale transactions. No offence of conspiracy to do any illegal act or to commit an offence is made out from the facts of the case against the petitioners. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences for which the F.I.R. was registered is wholly unjustified and clearly opposed to all cannons and basic tenets of criminal law and it amounts to sheer abuse of process of court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the same in view of the law enunciated and the grounds enumerated by the Apex Court in Bhajan Lal11‟s case and other judgments of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy8 and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa9.
104) Therefore, both the Criminal Petitions are allowed and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners, who are A-8, A-10 and A-11 in Crime No.08/RCO-ACB-GNT/2020 of A.C.B. Police Station, Guntur, is hereby quashed.
64
CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:02-09-2021.
Note:
L.R. copy to be marked.
B/O cs 65 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y Criminal Petition Nos.4294 and 4295 of 2021 Dated: 02.09.2021 66 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY + Criminal Petition Nos.4294 and 4295 of 2021 % Dated 02-09-2021 Crl.P.No.4294 of 2021:
# Sri Tanuja Potluri @ Sritanuja.N. ..... Petitioner Vs. $ The State of Andhra Pradesh (D.S.P., ACB, Guntur P.S.,) rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Amaravati & Anr.
.....Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioner/s : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel.
^ Counsel for 1st respondent State: Learned Advocate-General for Smt.A.Gayathri Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB-cum-Special Public Prosecutor;
Counsel for 2nd respondent: Sri O.Kailashnath Reddy, Learned counsel.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred:
1. (2014) 2 SCC 1
2. (2020) 10 SCC 118 = (2021) SCC Online SC 315
3. (2004) 2 SCC 267
4. (2000) 1 SCC 210
5. Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 196 of 2011 dated 02.03.2020
6. (2013) 1 SCC 353
7. (1788) 2 Bro. C.C. 400 = 29 E. R. 224
8. (1977) 2 SCC 699
9. (2002) 3 SCC 89
10. (2009) 8 SCC 751
11. 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 = 1982 CriLJ 527 67 CMR,J.
Crl.P.Nos.4294 & 4295 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Criminal Petition Nos.4294 and 4295 of 2021 Crl.P.No.4294 of 2021:
Sri Tanuja Potluri @ Sritanuja.N., ..... Petitioner Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (D.S.P., ACB, Guntur P.S.,) rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Amaravati & Anr.
..Respondents COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 02-09-2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers --
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be -Yes- marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see -Yes- the fair copy of the Judgment?
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY