Telangana High Court
D.Rama Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 22 September, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12255 of 2018
ORDER:
The sole accused in this case is seeking quashment of C.C.No.1243 of 2018 cognizance of which was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC on a private complaint field by the de-facto complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:
3. Originally, the complainant along with his mother- Bharathamma have purchased agriculture land to an extent of Ac.13.05 guntas in Sy.Nos.790, 792, 794, 796 and 798 situated at Wardhannapet Village and Mandal, Warangal District from the accused and also Smt. Sumathi Devi, who is the elder sister of the petitioner, for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,62,650/- on 24.05.1998 and the petitioner has executed a simple sale deed and delivered the possession of the property. The petitioner has sold the said property in favour of the de-facto complainant on his behalf and also on behalf of his siblings, D. Muralidhar Rao, G. Swaroopa Rani and D. Sumathi Devi as General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder vide document No.1550 of 1993. The petitioner with mala fide intention has induced the de-facto complainant to believe that he has got GPA from all the three persons. However, he has got GPA only from d. 2 Muralidhar Rao. The de-facto complainant has got the simple sale deed regularized and their names have been mutated in the revenue records, pattadar and title deed passbooks have been given.
4. D. Muralidhar Rao and Swaroopa Rani, who are no other than siblings of the petitioner, have filed an appeal before RDO, Warangal vide appeal No.A/878/2008 for cancellation of pattadar and title deed passbooks issued in favour of the de-facto complainant and managed to see that mutation orders are cancelled. Subsequently, on the intervention of elders and relatives, Sumathi Devi, Muralidhar Rao and Swaroopa Rani have executed a registered sale deed on 23.12.2010 in respect of Ac.9.10 guntas of land. However, the petitioner and others have not executed such registered in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas.
5. On 07.01.2017, the accused conspired with others trespassed into the land, tried to damaged the crop and when the de-facto complainant and others intervened, the petitioner and his followers have abused them in filthy language. On a complaint filed before the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on which a case in Crime No.171 of 2017 has been registered for the offence under Sections 420, 447, 426, 506 IPC. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has examined the de-facto complainant, 3 visited the scene of offence, secured witnesses LWs.2 to 6, recorded their statements in the presence of panchas, LWs.7 and 8, and rough sketch was drafted. On completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed stating that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 420 IPC. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case against the sole accused i.e., the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 420 IPC.
6. Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed on the following grounds:
7. The petitioner is not the owner of the property. He was only GPA holder for G. Sumathi Devi, Swaroopa Rani and Muralidhar Rao. D.Muralidhar Rao and Swaroopa Rani have challenged ROR proceedings before the appellate authority and got favourable orders on 01.10.2008 vide proceedings No.A1878 of 2008, and they have become final.
8. The de-facto complainant has filed O.S.No.291 of 2018 for specific performance and the same is pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Warangal. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and a false complaint is filed in order to coerce the petitioner. The said Muralidhar Rao, represented by his GPA holder Saibaba has filed O.S.No.489 of 2017 in respect of the schedule of property in the said suit and obtained interim injunction. 4 Therefore, sought for quashment of C.C.No.1243 of 2018 pending against the petitioner.
9. Heard both sides and perused the record.
10. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1243 of 2018 can be quashed?
11. According to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner has misguided the de-facto complainant stating that he has got GPA from three persons, namely, Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi, however, he got GPA only from Muralidhar Rao. The de-facto complainant has failed to file GPA, which the petitioner was having. It would have been clear as to whether GPA was given by three persons or Muralidhar Rao alone. Even according to the de-facto complainant, the simple sale deed executed on behalf of three persons, namely, Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi, though not having GPA from all the three persons, the said sale deed has been regularized and he has been given title deeds and pattadar passbooks. Therefore, whatever defective title the petitioner has transferred on account of not having GPA from Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi, has already been regularized by the revenue department and the de- facto complainant has been given title deeds and pattadar passbooks. 5
12. Further, it is to be noted that in order to transfer title from one person to another person, the registered sale deed is required to be executed. According to the de-facto complainant, he has purchased a property under a simple sale deed. Simple sale deed will not pass the title. Copy of the simple sale deed is not before the Court. Even otherwise, the de-facto complainant was expected to go through prior to the execution of simple sale deed dated 24.05.1998 as to whether the petitioner is having any authority to sell the property on behalf of Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi. It is not mentioned as to whether the de-facto complainant has verified the GPA or not.
13. According to the de-facto complainant, though Muralidhar Rao, and Swaroopa Rani have challenged the giving of pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the de-facto complainant, on the intervention of elders, again the Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi have executed registered sale deed in respect of Ac.9.10 guntas. Therefore, again whatever defective title, which the de-facto complainant got from the petitioner on account of not having GPA from Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi, and on account of not executing the registered sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant was rectified as Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi have executed registered sale deed in favour of the de- facto complainant on 23.12.2010. Therefore, once the registered sale 6 deed has been executed in favour of the de-facto complainant, there should not have been any grievance against the petitioner.
14. The other grievance of the de-facto complainant against the petitioner is that though Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi have executed registered sale deed in respect of Ac.9.10 guntas, there is no sale deed executed by the petitioner in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas belonging to the petitioner and others. The de-facto complainant has not mentioned as to which are the other persons along with the petitioner are the owners of Ac.4.30 guntas. Not only that, according to the petitioner, he is not the owner of any piece of land. He is only GPA holder of Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi. Therefore, when the petitioner is not the owner of the property i.e., balance of Ac.4.30 guntas along with others, how can the de-facto complainant is expected him to execute the registered sale deed.
15. Even otherwise, there is no agreement between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant in respect of execution of registered sale deed in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas. The only document that was executed by the petitioner was on 24.05.1998 on behalf of Muralidhar Rao, Swaroopa Rani and Sumathi Devi. Even if the said document dated 24.05.1998 was executed not only on behalf of three persons, but also on his behalf, then he has already executed simple sale deed , 7 which was already regularized by the Government. It is not the contention of the de-facto complainant that he has requested the petitioner to execute registered sale deed in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas of land along with others.
16. In order to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC, the de- facto complainant is expected to show the ingredients that the accused with an dishonest intention from the inception induced the de-facto complainant to part with the property or valuable security. In the case on hand, according to the de-facto complainant, petitioner has committed offence under Section 420 IPC, as he has not executed registered sale deed along with others in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas. As already observed, there is no record to show that the petitioner has agreed to sell Ac.4.30 guntas of land in favour of the de-facto complainant. Not only that, whatever document the petitioner is supposed to execute, he has executed on 24.05.1998. Once he has already executed sale deed in respect of the land in favour of the de- facto complainant, again how the petitioner can execute sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant.
17. It is not the case of the de-facto complainant that the sale deed executed by the petitioner on 24.05.1998 has become invalid on account of not having registration. As already observed, the simple sale deed executed on 24.05.1998 has already been regularized by the 8 Government and on recognizing the title, the Government has issued pattadar passbook and title deed. If at all the petitioner is having intention right from the beginning to cheat the de-facto complainant, the petitioner could not have executed a simple sale deed dated 24.05.1998 in favour of the de-facto complainant. So, from the date of execution of simple sale deed until this complaint is field, the de-facto complainant has no grievance against the petitioner.
18. Therefore, once the petitioner has already executed the sale deed and since the de-facto complainant has not requested at all the petitioner to execute the sale deed in respect of Ac.4.30 guntas of land, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
19. Even otherwise, the dispute between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner is purely civil in nature. According to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner has not executed sale deed in respect of Ac.4.30 gutnas of land. But, he has not executed. In fact, the de- facto complainant has filed O.S.No.291 of 2018 for specific performance of agreement of sale, whereas D. Muralidhar Rao represented by P. Saibaba has filed O.S.No.489 of 2017. Therefore, when the de-facto complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of civil Court, in respect of non-execution of some document, the de-facto 9 complainant cannot invoke a complaint under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority reported in Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 8 held as under:
"8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the 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 pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. (see G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. ((2000) 2 SCC 636) and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. ((2006) 6 SCC 736). Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.
21. Therefore, considering the discussion above, including the rationale in the above authority, it is clear that a civil dispute has been converted into criminal case and that there are no ingredients to conclude that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 420 IPC, therefore, the petition is liable to be allowed.
22. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1243 of 2018 on the file 1 (2009) 8 SCC 751 10 of the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 22.09.2022 ES