Telangana High Court
Shaik Afsar And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 11 October, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5296 OF 2019
ORDER:
The petitioners/A1 and A2 in C.C.No.320 of 2016 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has filed this petition seeking quashment of charge sheet, cognizance of which was taken against them for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 120B and 34 IPC.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are that the de- facto complainant is the owner of land admeasuring 150 square yards bearing H.No.10-5-2/3/3, Dhobi Ghat, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. In the year 2004, when the de-facto complainant with an intention to sell the said property was looking for prospering purchasers, A1 approached him and agreed to purchase the said property for an amount of Rs.9,25,000/- of which he has paid an amount of Rs.4,75,000/- and entered into an agreement of sale as a land grabbing case was pending in respect of the said property. The accused persons have agreed to pay the balance amount and get the document registered after disposal of the land grabbing case. Subsequently, the possession was delivered to petitioner No.1, who has took the electricity 2 connection, dug the bore well, and executed gift settlement deed in respect of the said property on 27.03.2004 in favour of his wife/A2 by way of registered gift deed bearing No.1402 of 2014 and subsequently, petitioner No.2/A2 again has executed GPA in favour of A1 on 04.04.2014 at SRO, Gonconda. After disposal of the land grabbing case, when the de-facto complainant has asked the petitioners to come forward, they started behaving as if they are the owners and thereby the de-facto complainant filed a complaint.
3. Basing on the complaint of the de-facto complainant, police have registered a case in Crime No.194 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471 read with 120B and 34 IPC and under Section 82 of the Registration Act, cognizance of which was taken for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 120B and 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed for the following grounds:
4. After taking possession from the de-facto complainant, petitioner No.1 have started washing center in the name and style of Babu Motors for washing two, three and four wheelers for which he has dug a bore well and constructed compound wall by 3 spending huge amount. Petitioner No.1 has also paid property tax and municipal No.10-5-2/3/3/A/1 was allotted. A1 and his brother have collected huge amounts from the de-facto complainant under the guise of regularization and when the de-
facto complainant has tried to evict the petitioners, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.849 of 2014 on the file of IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 09.11.2015. As per the contents of the charge sheet, the petitioners have not committed any offence and the de- facto complainant is not the owner and by way of executing the agreement of sale, the de-facto complainant has cheated the petitioners and the petitioners were lured and therefore, prayed the Court to quash the charge sheet.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.320 of 2016 against the petitioners can be quashed?
7. One of the contentions of the petitioners is that the de-facto complainant is not the owner of the property which was alleged to be sold to the petitioners and the de-facto complainant has cheated the petitioners by way of selling the land belonging to the 4 Government. The petitioners have not filed any suit on a criminal case against the de-facto complainant in respect of the allegations made against the petitioners. Even according to the petitioners, it has been specifically mentioned in the agreement of sale that a land grabbing case is pending and depending on the outcome of the said case, the de-facto complainant would execute sale deed. Therefore, the petitioners now cannot say that the land belonging to the Government. The further contention of the petitioners that the de-facto complainant has collected money from the petitioners under the guise of regularizing the said land also amounts to show that the petitioners are having knowledge that there is a dispute between the Government and the de-facto complainant in respect of ownership. Therefore, having knowledge about the fact that there is a dispute in respect of the 150 square yards of land as to whether the Government is the owner or the de-facto complainant, now the petitioners cannot allege that the de-facto complainant has deceived them by executing agreement of sale in respect of Government land.
8. According to the petitioners, the de-facto complainant was the owner thereby they agreed to purchase 150 square yards of land for a sum of Rs.9,25,000/- and paid half of the amount. 5 Admittedly, registered sale deed has not been executed in favour of the petitioners. The attempt made by the petitioners to get injunction against the de-facto complainant was also not granted by the Court and was also failed. Therefore, the petitioners are admittedly not the owners. The dispute is whether the Government is the owner or the de-facto complainant. The possession of 150 square yards was given by the de-facto complainant in favour of the petitioners. However, the actions of the petitioners would go to show that they have taken the municipal number, electricity permission, municipal door number etc., in the name of the petitioners as if they are the owners. They have been paying the municipal tax in their name. Similarly, petitioner No.1 has executed a gift settlement deed of the land in favour of his wife/A2 and A2, in turn, has executed GPA in favour of petitioner No.1. Therefore, the actions of the A1 and A2 would clearly go to show that they are behaving as if they are the owners of the property.
9. The questions whether the actions amount to the offence alleged against them cannot be decided in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is reported that during the course of hearing that prosecution has already examined three 6 witnesses. That means, charges have already been framed, the petitioners have denied the charges and prosecution has also commenced the trial and three witnesses were examined. Therefore, when the trial is in progress to decide as to whether the accused have committed the offence alleged against them, this petition at this stage becomes infructuous.
10. On considering the rival contentions, it is clear that the number of factual issues alleged by the de-facto complainant and denied by the petitioners. Therefore, unless and until full fledged trial is conducted to get the truth or otherwise, the submissions made by both sides cannot be concluded. This is not a case where on going through the charge sheet it cannot be said that there is no case against the petitioners. There is a prima facie material against the petitioners. Therefore, considering the circumstances, it is a fit case where the trial Court can be directed to continue the trial as per law.
11. In view of the above, the criminal petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial and complete the same as quickly as possible, preferably, within a period of six 7 (6) months from the date of order uninfluenced by the comments made by this Court in respect of the merits of the case.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 11.10.2022 ES