Telangana High Court
Dharani Sagar vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2023
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9312 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A1 & A2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.82 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Peddapally for the offences under Sections 420 and 290 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that he purchased the property through bank auction by paying an amount of Rs.14,64,000/- and the document was registered in his favour in the year 2016. However, the 2nd respondent came to know that A3 and A4 have fabricated Gift Settlement Deed and tried to occupy the said land. When questioned, these petitioners and two others threatened the 2nd respondent.
3. The 1st petitioner, who is aged around 25 years was gifted the said property by his father/A2. The said property is ancestral property.
4. On the basis of the transfer of rights to A1 by way of gift settlement deed, loan was taken from the Bank. However, on failure to repay the said loan, the property was subjected to auction by the Bank authorities. Having purchased the property from the Bank authorities, the 2nd 2 respondent later came to know that there were disputes inter se between the family members A2 to A4. A2 and A3 are sons of A4.
5. The Bank has taken opinion on an application being filed by A1 for the purpose of loan. Having made enquiries with respect to the loan amount and the property, the Bank had given the loan. In the present case, the allegation is that by way of gift settlement property was transferred which was executed by A3 and A4. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner had never misrepresented before the Bank as it is evident from the transactions. The Bank never complained about the document that was pledged by the 1st petitioner. In the event of any subsequent gifts being executed in between A2 and A3, sons and father/A4, A1 cannot be mulcted with any criminal liability. It is not the case that the 1st petitioner at any point of time had induced the 2nd respondent for purchasing the property. Admittedly, A1 is a stranger to the 2nd respondent. After purchase of the property from the Bank having found that there are disputes in the family regarding the property, he lodged the present complaint.
6. To attract an offence under Section 420 of IPC, there has to be a fraudulent inducement practiced by a person, pursuant to which, the person deceived should have delivered the property. In the present case, the Bank has not complained about any deception that was practiced by 3 the 1st petitioner. In the said circumstances, proceedings cannot be permitted to continue against A1.
7. In the result, the proceedings against 1st petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.82 of 2021 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Peddapally, are hereby quashed. However, the proceedings against A2 shall continue.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed in part. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:25.04.2023 kvs 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9312 OF 2021 Dt. 25.04.2023 kvs