Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Telangana High Court

U.V.Suresh Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2022

Author: K. Lakshman

Bench: K. Lakshman

  THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

      CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1871 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri U.V. Suresh Kumar, learned party in person, learned Public Prosecutor. There is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

2. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1019 of 2020 pending on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. The petitioners herein are the accused in the said C.C. Offences alleged against the first petitioner are under sections 420, 406 of IPC and against the 2nd petitioner/A2 are under sections 448 and 506 IPC.

4. As per the charge sheet, the allegations levelled against the petitioners herein are as follows: 2 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021

The 2nd respondent (LW.1) is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.8-7-89/154, Phase- II, Lane No.6, opposite to B.N. Reddy Nagar, Chaitanya Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. District. She has purchased the said house in the year 1994. LW.2 is her husband. He has purchased open land admeasuring 146.6 sq. yards under the registered sale deed document No.13198 of 1994 in the name of his wife/LW.1. They have obtained construction permission from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for plinth area of 600 sft., but LW.2 constructed the house in the plinth area of 1330 sft., in the year 1995 and they have been paying property tax to GHMC for the entire 1330 sft. In the year 2018, LW.2 again constructed the house in the first floor within plinth area of 450 sft., Thus, at present the said house built up area in the ground floor is 1330 sft., and first floor 450 sft.

4.1 In the year 2019, LW.1 was in need of amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for his personal expenses, he approached A1 with a request to lend the said amount. A1 agreed and lend the said amount to LW.2 on the condition of executing a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA with regard to above said property in his favour as surety. LW.2(husband of 2nd respondent/LW.1) accepted the same and accordingly executed AGPA on 07.02.2019 vide document No.1316 of 2019. Thereafter, the first petitioner has also obtained a sale deed bearing document No.6799 of 2019 dt.09.07.2019. According to the 2nd respondent, the first petitioner has lent an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- on payment of interest and he has got above said AGPA as surety. LW.2 has paid interest to A1 and he was intending to clear off the said loan, but A1 did not accept the same with an intention to grab the said property.

4.2 The first petitioner/A1 sent his junior 2nd petitioner/A2 to the house of LWs 1 and 2, she has threatened them to vacate the premises stating that A1, her senior, purchased the said property. She has abused them in filthy and in unparliamentary language. She has also threatened the 2nd respondent/LW.2 that she is going to lodge a false case for the offences under the provisions of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act against them. A1 also threatened them in the very same manner. Therefore, the first petitioner/A1 has committed the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and 2nd petitioner/A2 has committed offences under Sections 448 and 506 IPC.

4.3 On receipt of complaint from the 2nd respondent, the Investigating Officer, Police Station, Vanasthalipuram, has registered a case in Crime No.619 of 2019 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein. During the course of investigation, 5 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 he has recorded the statements of 2nd respondent as LW.1, her husband as LW.2 and eyewitnesses as LWs 3 to 5, LW.6 document writer, who prepared Agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession and also sale deed. On consideration of said statements of above said witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Investigating Officer has laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein.

The same was taken on file as C.C. No.1019 of 2020 on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5. Sri U.V. Suresh Kumar, learned party-in- person, would submit that he has purchased the above said subject matter property from LWs 1 and 2 by paying the above said sale consideration. The 2nd petitioner/A2, his junior, lent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to them and when she requested them to repay the same, they have abused the both the petitioners in the present case. There were disputes 6 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 between the 1st petitioner and one Y. Jagan Mohan Reddy, first junior, who is also a relative to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer without conducting the investigation properly laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein. The contents of the charge sheet lack the ingredients of the offences against the petitioners herein. The Investigating Officer in the present crime and Investigating Officer in Crime No.340 of 2018 and 8 of 2020 are one and the same. The complaint was given against the said Investigating Officer and a disciplinary action was initiated. Though the 2nd respondent and her husband received entire sale consideration, they have requested the 1st petitioner to let out the said property for four months to them to enable them to look for alternative accommodation and he has accepted the same and let out the said property to them. When 1st petitioner requested them to vacate the said premises, they have abused the petitioners, and filed the present false case. 7 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 1019 of 2020.

6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that prima facie there are specific allegations against both the petitioners. The contents of the charge sheet and contents of statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. The defences taken by the petitioners are triable issues and same cannot be considered in a petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have to face the trial and prove their innocence. Instead of proving so, they have filed the present petition. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

7. Despite giving opportunity, there was no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent on 15.02.2022, 21.02.2022, 11.04.2022 and 12.04.2022. Therefore, this court after hearing the learned party-in- person, and learned Public Prosecutor, reserved the matter on 12.04.2022.

8. The above said facts and submissions would reveal that the 1st petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the said property under the above AGPA and sale deed from the 2nd respondent (LW.1 and her husband). Whereas the 2nd respondent and her husband are claiming that they have obtain an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- towards loan from the 1st petitioner and they have paid monthly interest. When LW.2 and 2nd respondent intend to return the said amount, the 1st petitioner refused to receive the same with an intention to grab the said property and he has 9 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 sent the 2nd petitioner/A2 to their house, who in turn abused and threatened them.

9. It is relevant to note that the Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of above said witnesses including tenants of said property and also the document writer as LW.6. Basing on the said statements recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, in the charge sheet the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned the following issues:

i) AGPA document bearing No.1316 of 2019 with possession was dt.07.02.2019 and plinth area was shown only as 600 sft., with an intention to pay less registration fee as the said fee has been paid by LW.2.

The statement of LW.6, document writer is corroborating with the statement of LW.2.

ii) Normally at the time of registration of house or plot, the purchaser will bear the expenses of 10 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 registration. Whereas in the present case, LW.2 has paid the registration fee. The said fact itself would reveal that the LWs 1 and 2 have executed AGPA as surety for the amount received by them from the 1st petitioner.

iii) As stated above, the total plinth area of the above said house is 1330 sft., in the ground floor and 450 sft., in the first floor. They will affix photographs of the said building to the registered document. They have not taken such steps. They have mentioned plinth area of 600 sft, and the said fact would reveal that LW.2 has obtained from the first petitioner and he and his wife have not sold the property to the 1st petitioner herein.

iv) The said AGPA was executed by LW.1 on 07.02.2019. The sale consideration of Rs.15,93,000/- was mentioned in the said document. Thereafter sale deed document bearing No.6799 of 2019 was obtained by the 1st petitioner on 09.07.2019. There is no 11 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 explanation, much, plausible explanation from the 1st petitioner with regard to waiting for five months to get the sale deed registered in his favour. There is also no explanation from the 1st petitioner with regard obtaining AGPA and in respect of regular sale deed. The same proves that the 1st petitioner has obtained the above said two documents as surety.

v) LW.2 has paid regular instalments of interest to 1st petitioner every month from February 2019 to June 2019 i.e. from execution of AGPA to execution of sale deed. In the reply submitted by the 1st petitioner to the notice under Sec.41A of Code of Criminal Procedure, he has not mentioned any reply regarding receiving the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards instalments/interest monthly. There is nothing in writing. The said fact would reveal that the 1st petitioner herein has hatched a plan to grab the said property.

vi) Property tax receipts would also reveal that LWs 1 and 2 have paid the property tax with regard to above said plinth area.

vii) As per the version of first petitioner, he has purchased the said house with 600 sft., cannot be believed since no purchaser will purchase only 600 sft., of a house property which consists of 1300 sft., in the ground floor and 450 sft., in the 2nd floor. The said fact itself would reveal the cheating committed by the 1st petitioner.

viii) On 07.07.2019, LW.2 has forwarded the message to the 1st petitioner, which is as follows:

"Dear Suresh as u asked I arranged Rs.50 L which account shall I credit the amount."

The said fact would reveal that LW.2 intended to return the said amount to the 1st petitioner but 1st petitioner refused to accept the same with an intention to grab the said property which is worth Rs.2.00 crores, and obtained the above said sale deed on 13 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 09.07.2019, which is two days later of the said message.

ix) The power connection is also there by mentioning the above said plinth area and there is only one power connection.

x) The recitals in AGPA and also in the sale deed it is mentioned that LW.1 has received the sale consideration of Rs.15,93,000/-. The 1st petitioner/purchaser has paid the amount, but the mode of payment like Demand Draft or cheques etc., is not mentioned. There is no mention of payment of said amount by cash. Therefore, the said fact would reveal that the 1st petitioner has obtained the above AGPA and sale deed towards surety.

xi) Even to establish the fact that the 2nd petitioner/A2 went to the house of LWs 1 and 2 and abused them in filthy language and threatened them etc., is also proved by recording the statements of tenants and others.

10. Thus, the Investigating Officer by recording the statements of above said witnesses and on consideration of the same, laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein.

11. A perusal of the statement of LW.6, document writer, would reveal the said facts that the 1st petitioner has obtained the above AGPA towards security. The statement of LW.6 is corroborating with the statement of LW.2. The tenants of said property have specifically spoken about the role played by the 2nd petitioner/A2 in commission of offence.

12. A perusal of the record also would reveal that the 1st petitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S. No.936 of 2019 against the husband of 2nd respondent for eviction and for arrears of rent. The said suit is pending. In the said suit, the 1st petitioner has contended that he has let out the said property to LW.2 on his request. It is also relevant to note that the 15 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 husband of 2nd respondent (LW.2) has filed O.S. No.1 of 2020 against the 1st petitioner for declaration of the above said sale deed as null and void. A perusal of plaints in both the suits and also perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the payment made by the 1st petitioner to LW.2 through cheque numbers, bank name, amounts etc., are also specifically mentioned. Whereas the mode of payment of sale consideration in the above said AGPA and sale deed are not mentioned. The above said facts would reveal that prima facie there are specific allegations against the both the petitioners herein. The defence taken by the petitioners herein cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said principle was also held by the Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra1, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that quashing criminal proceedings 1 . AIR 2019 SC 847 16 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to the High Court to quash the same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of the complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing a complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only relevant question was whether averments in the complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider 17 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 whether complaint discloses any prima facie offences that were alleged against the respondents. Correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on the ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

13. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C 2 . AIR 2021 SC 931 18 Crl. P. No.1871 of 2021 has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.

14. In view of the above said discussions, more particularly, concerning the fact that primarily there are specific allegations against the petitioners herein, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.1019 of 2020. The defences taken by the petitioners herein are triable issues and petitioners are before the trial Court and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. The contention of the petitioners that the Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram, who is related to his junior Y. Jagan Mohan Reddy, and against him, the 1st petitioner lodged disciplinary action, they are also triable issues and petitioners have to take said defence during the course of trial. Viewed from any angle, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to dismissed.

15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

16. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 06.06.2022 BDR