Telangana High Court
Pankaj Jaiswal vs Ganapathi Pillai Alias Munnuswamy on 21 June, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9916 of 2018
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.2919 of 2018 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, which was taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 464, 468 and 506 IPC.
The contents of the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant/respondent No.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner, would go to show that the de-facto complainant has taken a premises in door No.1-5-221, old No.195, consisting of two small rooms and open space about 40 years ago on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- from its registered owner Smt. Kundan Bai. The de-facto complainant used to pay the rent regularly to the landlady. Since 2003 onwards, she used to sent the petitioner, who is her grand son, for collection of rent. In the year 2006, the landlady orally agreed to sell the premises to the de-facto complainant for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. As the landlady could not visit the premises on account of her ill-ness, the petitioner used to visit the said premises and has shown a GPA executed by the landlady in favour of the petitioner and 2 misinterpreted that the landlady has given GPA to him to sell the property and demanded Rs.5 lakhs as sale consideration. The de-facto complainant did not agree the said proposal stating that the landlady has agreed to sell the property to him only for Rs.2 lakhs. The petitioner has collected an amount of Rs.5,000/- in the year 2006 from the de-facto complainant and thereafter, he made to believe her that he will register the property by executing the sale deed and collected Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.376598 dated 31.03.2006 drawn on Bank of India, another Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.633144 drawn on ICICI Bank and Rs.1 lakh by way of another cheque bearing No.418931 dated 31.08.2006. Subsequently, he failed to execute the sale deed and the de- facto complainant came to know that on 21.05.2015 the landlady died.
According to the complaint, the petitioner has committed offence of cheating, fraud and misinterpretation and earned money of Rs.2 lakhs by taking the undue advantage of the ignorance of the de-facto complainant.
The trial Court has taken cognizance of the case against the petitioner under Sections 420, 406, 464, 468 and 506 IPC, 3 The de-facto complainant/respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 to vacate the stay granted by this Court on 28.04.2022.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
Now the point for determination is:
Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2919 of 2018 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against the petitioner can be quashed?
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has filed number of documents along with his vacate stay petition. It is settled legal position that this Court while considering an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would only consider the documents filed before the trial Court in the charge sheet and cannot go into the details of the other documents and assess their veracity and come to the conclusion that as to whether the petitioner has committed the offence alleged or not. Therefore, except the documents, which are filed in the charge sheet, the other documents cannot be considered by this Court in order to see whether the petitioner has made out any case to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2919 of 2018. 4
Coming to the issue involved in this petition, the case against the petitioner is very simple and straight. Admittedly, the petitioner's grant mother is the owner of the property. She has given a GPA in his favour for collection of rent from the de- facto complainant on account of her ill-ness and accordingly, the petitioner has been collecting the rents properly for some time. However, subsequently, by showing the GPA, which was executed only in respect of collection of rents, the petitioner allegedly misinterpreted the de-facto complainant that the petitioner is authorized by his grand mother to sell the property and bargained with the de-facto complainant and collected Rs.2 lakhs in three installments by way of different cheques.
It is the case of the de-facto complainant that even according to the petitioner, the said amount of Rs.2 lakhs was given towards goodwill and the same thing is mentioned in the proceedings before the rent controller, which were filed for eviction of the de-facto complainant from the said premises. According to the de-facto complainant, it was only an oral agreement to purchase the property and the petitioner has misinterpreted him. As per the copies of the cheques, the amounts were received by the petitioner. No reason is explained by the petitioner as to why the petitioner has collected Rs.2 5 lakhs from the de-facto complainant. The GPA is given only to collect the rents and to file cases and counters etc. Therefore, the question raised by the de-facto complainant and also the defence raised by the petitioner are certainly worth considering.
The question whether as to what purpose the petitioner has collected money from the de-facto complainant is a question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court while dealing with the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot assess and analyze the documents filed to come to a conclusion as to whether the de-facto complainant's version can be believed or the version of the accused. The petitioner has got an option to file a discharge petition before the trial Court and to file whatever documents he likes in the said petition. Similarly, the de-facto complainant while opposing the said application can also put-forth all his defence, including the proceedings of the civil Court and the rent controller Court.
Therefore, considering the material on record, this Court is of the firm view that at this stage, basing on the complex issues involved in this case, this Court cannot interfere to hold that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. 6
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 21.06.2022 ES