Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. Gudi Bhaskaraiah, vs State Of Ap on 11 March, 2020
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Criminal Petition No.1347 of 2020
Order:
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
quash of FIR in Crime No.412/2019 of Mutyalareddypalli Police
Station, Tirupati Urban District.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The de facto complainant lodged a report with the Police
stating that the petitioners herein have agreed to sell Ac.11-50
cents of land to the de facto complainant. The 1st petitioner is
the husband of the 2nd petitioner and the 3rd petitioner is their
son. It is alleged that they all agreed to sell the said property for
a sum of Rs.20 lakhs. Initially, after receiving a sum of
Rs.15 lakhs towards advance that they executed an agreement
to sell in favour of the de facto complainant. Thereafter, they
have received a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards part of sale
consideration from the petitioner and made an endorsement to
that effect on the back of the agreement to sell dated 27-5-2012.
On 24-01-2016, accused 1 and 2 approached the de facto
complainant and requested to return the original agreement to
sell stating that they would execute fresh agreement to sell.
Accordingly, when the de facto complainant returned the
agreement to sell dated 27-5-2012 that accused 1 and 2 have
executed an agreement to sell dated 24-01-2016 in favour of the
de facto complainant. Thereafter, they did not register the sale
deed in favour of the de facto complainant and they are
postponing the same. So, the de facto complainant got
2
suspicion over them and when he enquired from the Revenue
authorities that he came to know that the petitioners herein
have no saleable interest in the said property and the said land
is a DKT land. Therefore, they have cheated the de facto
complainant.
4. The Police registered the said report as a case in Crime
No.412/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420
and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. The said case is now
under investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
the petitioners did not execute any agreement to sell in favour of
the de facto complainant and it is a false allegation. Even
otherwise, if the petitioners failed to execute a registered sale
deed, he would submit that the de facto complainant has
to file a suit for specific performance as it is a civil liability.
So, he would submit that launching criminal prosecution
against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and thereby
prayed to quash the FIR registered against them.
6. This Court do not find any merit in the said contention.
The contents of the FIR clearly show that the petitioners have
executed an agreement to sell in favour of the de facto
complainant in respect of the land covered by Survey
Nos.643/1, 643/2 etc., which is in an extent of Ac.11-50 cents
and thereby collected a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as advance sale
price and again Rs.5 lakhs and collected the entire sale
consideration. Thereafter, they evaded execution of registered
3
sale deed in favour of the de facto complainant. It is alleged
that when the de facto complainant got suspicion over their
conduct and when he enquired from the Revenue authorities
that he came to know that the petitioners herein have no
saleable interest in the said property and that the land in
question is a DKT land. Therefore, when it is the case of the
de facto complainant that without a saleable interest in the said
property and when the said property is a DKT land that the
petitioners have executed an agreement to sell and collected
Rs.20 lakhs from him, these facts prima facie constitute
an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
7. The disputed fact whether the petitioners have executed
an agreement to sell in favour of the de facto complainant as
held by him cannot be decided in this petition filed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C in exercise of inherent powers of this
Court. It is for the Investigating Officer to ascertain the truth or
otherwise of the said allegations during the course of
investigation. If ultimately the charge-sheet is filed, it is for the
trial Court to decide the truth or otherwise of the said
allegations in the final adjudication of the said case. Certainly,
the same cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C seeking quash of the FIR. So, as the facts of the case
prima facie disclose commission of an offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC, this Court normally will not interfere under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C to interdict the investigation. So, there
are absolutely no grounds warranting interference of this Court
4
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the FIR. Therefore, the
petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the petition is dismissed. However, since
the offences for which the FIR is registered are punishable with
less than seven years period of imprisonment, the Investigating
Officer shall follow the procedure contemplated under Section
41A of Cr.P.C. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________________
CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.
11th March, 2020.
Ak 5 HONOURABLEBLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Criminal Petition No.1347 of 2020 11th March, 2020.
(Ak)