The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed bY the Petitioner/ accused under Section 482 of Cr.P'C to quash the proceedings agalnst him in S.C.Spl'No 1 6 of 2023 on the hle of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad' 2

Heard Sri B ' Rohith Yadav' learned counsel for the learned Assistant Pubiic Sri Rudresh DeshPalde' resPondent No' 1-State petitroner, Prosecutor for Narasimhulu, learned counsel for respondent No'1 and Sri P Perused the record' Brief facts of the case: The petitioner is accused No 1 in S'C'Sp1'No'16 ol 2023 3. facing accusations lbr the offences under Section 42O of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amend'ment Act' 2015' The said case registered Pursuant to a private comPlaint lodged bY was referred to the Police ald respondent No'2 when it registered vid'e FIR No'59 of 2022 dated' 1O'O2'2O22 against the 2 petitioner and two other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 42O r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) SC/ST (POA) Act. Upon registering the FIR, the police conducted investigation and frled charge sheet for the offences under Section 42O of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and the same was taken on file vide S.C.Spl.No.16 of 2023 against the petitioner and no charge was framed against accused Nos.2 and 3. 4 The crux of the case was on a unsuccessful sale transaction between the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 The respondent No.2 and one Baluka Mallikarjun entered into an Agreement of sale dated 29.06.2016 with N. Sudershan Yadav (died) and his brother Nakkala Kishore Yadav i.e. petitioner herein for iand admeasuring 586 sq.yds. bearing H.No.1-13-68 to 70 situated at Balamrai, Begumpet, Secunderabad for total sale consideration of Rs.60,00,0O0/-. Out of said sale consideration, Rs. 10,00,OO0/- was paid on the date of Agreement of sale on 29.06.2016 and subsequently, paid Rs.1,25,000/- on 05.08.2016, Rs.2,5O,OO0/- on 08.05.2018 T and Rs.5,O0,0OO/- on 26'O2'2019' Out of aforesaid amount' Rs.1,25,OO0i - was paid to the deceased N Sudershan Yadav who is brother of the petitioner herein' Thus' totally Rs.20,00,000/- u'7as paid to the petitioner a4d his brother' When a demand was made to execute sale deed' both of them have Protracted the same and did not register the property On respondent No'2 and Banuka account of Pressure from herein issued cheque dated Mallikarjun, the Petitioner 23.O8.2O2O in favour of Banuka Mallikarjun for an amount of Rs.5,OO,O00/ drarn'n on Induslald Bank' Somajiguda Bralch vide cheque No'831013' While things stood thus' the petitioner and deceased Sudershan Yadav have sold 300 sq'yds' of land to Mrs. Vidya Devi Jain (accused No'2) vide registered sale deed document No'161 of 2O2O and 286 sq'Yds' of land to Mrs NandaDeviBumb(accusedNo.3)videregisteredsaledeed document No 162 of 2O2O'both dated 27 'Ol'2O2O and thereby' cheated resPondent No'2 and Banuka Mallikarjun' When resPondent No.2 questioned the petitioner about the sale transaction, he abused respondent No.2 by taking Madiga caste a't 4

5. The accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Vidya Devi Jain and Nanda Devi Bumb got a public notice published in a newspaper before purchasing the property from the petitioner and N. Sudershan Yadav calling for objections. Since they have issued a paper publication notice, it was found that they did not have any intention to cheat, they do not have knowiedge about prior Agreement of sale and therefore, no case was made out against accused Nos.2 and 3 and they are not charge sheeted. 6 . Certain important factual aspects are that the petitioner herein and his brother Nakkala Sudershal yadav are co-owners of a parcel of land admeasuring 586 sq.yds. consisting of H.No.1-13-68 to 7O at Balamrai, Secunderabad. They offered to sell the property for Rs.6O,O0,OOO/- by taking advance payment of Rs.1O,OO,000/- with a commitment to pay the remaining Rs.50,0O,OO0/- within 90 days from the date of Agreement. Respondent No.2 and Baluka Mallikarjun failed in their obligation to pay the outstanding balance. Therefore, the Agreement of sale became a nullit5r and the advance payment was refunded and the original Agreement of sale was handed back to the deceased Nakkala Sudershan Yadav. Suddenly, I 1 5 respondent No.2 got a lega1 notice issued and it was replied through reply notice dated 16'04 '2021' The brother of the petitioner died on 25 'O4 '2021 and criminal proceedings are initiated only against the petitioner herein On the basis of FIR registered against the petitioner herein and accused Nos'2 and 3 i.e. Vidya Devi Jain and Nanda Devi Bumb' the police have conducted investigation af1d iiled charge sheet against the petitioner herein and the remaining accused Nos'2 and 3 are not charge sheeted. Contentions of the petitioner: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that no 7 . prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for the alieged charges of section 42O of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 as singular event that led to registering FIR is a case of breach of contract which is civil in nature.Foracaseofbreachofcontract,respondentNo.2hasto approach a competent civil court for remedy but cannot register a crimina-l case. It is argued that respondent No'2 with an ulterior motive to misuse the provisions of SC/ST Act motivated 6 by a civil dispute in order to extort money from the petitioner has initiated vexatious criminal proceedings abusing the process of law. It is conceded that there is an Agreement of sale between the petitioner, his deceased brother.on one hand and the respondent No.2 arrd Baluka Maltikarjun on the other hand for sale of immovable property consisting of land admeasuring 586 sq.yds. with a house at Balamrai, Secunderabad ald advalce amount was grven. But, respondent No.2 and Banuka Mallikarjun failed to live up to their obligation to pay within 90 days of agreement of sate, the outstanding balance of Rs.5O,00,OOO/_ out of total sale consideration of Rs.6O,O0,0OO/- arrd therefore, the propert5z was sold to Vidya Devi Jajn and Nanda Devi Bumb in the year 2O2O i.e. after four years of entering into an Agreement of sale with complainant (respondent No.2) ald his brother.

8. It is argued that no ingredients of Section 42O oflpC are attracted arrd it is a clear civil dispute of breach of contract. It is argued that the contents of legal notice and the reply notice are ignored by the Investigating Ofhcer and thereby, the charge sheet is filed in respect of a cirrii litigation. There is a delay of i 7 five years from the date of Agreement of sale in filing the FIR and the same creates doubts about the allegations made in the complaint. It is also argued that in order to give a colour of crimina,l offence, the provisions of SC/ST Act qre employed with a malafide intention.

9. There is a delay of five years in lodging the complaint after execution of the Agreement of sale by respondent No.2 whose father has contested in elections with al ulterior motive to extort money. The complaint as well as the charge sheet does not reveal the precise content of abusive language which attracts the provisions under SC/ST Act that too in an isolated place. The primary grievance is with respect to a proper$r dispute but not caste based abuse. On the basis of aforementioned arguments, it is prayed that the proceedings in S,C.Spl.No.16 of 2023 on the hle of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad, be quashed. Contentions of the resDondents:

10. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is prima facie case against the petitioner herein as there was an 8 intention to defraud respondent No.2 and his friend at the very inception of Agreement of sale ald therefore, charging under Section 42O of IpC is just and fair. Further, there is an instalce of abuse of respondent No.2 on the basis of caste and therefore, there is prima facie case under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2O15. Further, it is argued that the ingredients of fraud about intention to cheat the respondent No.2 and his friend prior to the execution of Agreement of sale is an issue of fact that has to be established during a full_fledged tria,l and therefore, no case is made out for quashing the proceedings in S.C.Spl.No. 16 of 2023. Findingsof the Court:

11. The undisputed fact is that there was an Agreement of sale dated 29.06.2016 between the petitioner, his deceased brother Nakkala Sudershan yadav on one hand and respondent No.2 ald Banuka Mallikarjun on the other hand for sale of plot admeasuring 5g6 sq.yds. with a house bearing No.1_13_6g to 7O situated at Balamrai, Begumpet, Secunderabad. As per said Agreement of sale, there is an acknowledgement of receipt of i :'l II 9 Rs.10,00,000/- by the petitioner herein and undertaking by respondent No.2 and his friend to pay balance sale consideration within 9O ddys from the date of Agreement of sale or at the time of registration whichever is earlier' Said recitals are extracted below: "That the VENDORS has this day received a sum of Rs.10,0O,OO0/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) through cash from the Vendees herein, as an advance and earnest. money of sale consideration, the receipt of which the vendors hereby accepts, admits and acknowledges. That the VENDEES herein agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs 50'O0'00O/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) in respect of the Schedule mentioned property to the Vendor' within a period of 90 days from the date of agreement of sale or at the time of registration' rn''hichever is earlier."

72. Thereafter, there was a sale deed executed between the petitioner and Nanda Devi Bumb on 27 'O|'2O2O vide registered saledeeddocumentNo.162of2o2o.Likewise,aregisteredsale deed was executed by the petitioner herein in favour of Vidya DeviJainvidedocumentNo.l6lof2o2o.Asperreplynotice dated 16.04 .2021 , the petitioner herein returned the advance 09 'O7 '2O2O with Rs. 1O,00,000/- on arnount of 10 r\ acknowledgement and Rs.20,00,OOO/- in the month of Novernber, 2O20 upon halded over the original Agreement of sale. After this transaction, there is no obligation between the parties. There is no response from respondent No.2 and his friend Banuka Mallikarjun for reply notice dated 16.04.2024 of petitioner alleging return of money on 09.O7 -2O2O with acknowledgement. It is seen that in case, there is any grievance about the Agreement of sale and its execution, respondent No.2 and his friend Banuka Mallikarjun ought to have f,rled a suit for specific performarrce within three years from the date of Agreement of sale or within three months thereafter i.e. either by 2a.06.2019 or 28.O9.2O19. Instead, a legal notice was issued in the year 2021 i.e. much after the expiry of limitation period. Further, it appears that respondent No.2 and Banuka Mallikarjun do not have the original Agreement of sale in their possession to institute a suit for specific performance. Such an inference can be drawn from the content of reply notice wherein it is stated as follows: 'That Agreement of sale entered between by them four years back and my clients, by which clients demanded to your client either to perform part performance, or cancel the Agreement of sa1e, as such E I I I { , I I I I 11 your clients cancelled the Agreement of saie entered between them, and clients returned the amount of Rs.1O,00,0OO/- on O9.OZ.2O2O, with acknowledgement and in the month of November, 2O2O, in the presence of Sri Mahender Reddy and Srikanth Yadav, an amount of Rs.20,O0,000/_, and vour clients handed over the Orisinal Asreement of sale mv clien ts, and thereafter my clients are in no obligation with your clients, and my clients are at liberty with regard property, as per their will and wish."

13. It is alleged by respondent No.2 that rhe worth of the property was Rs.2,00,00,000/_ but only advance sale consideration rvas returned and in said conduct, the fraudulent intent of the petitioner carr be deciphered. When the entire pattern of this case is examined, it is seen that there was a_n Agreement of sale between the petitioner and his brother on one hand and respondent No.2 and Banuka Mallikarjun on the other hand for sale of plot admeasuring 5g6 sq.yds. a,long with house for sale consideration of Rs.6O,OO,OO0/-. It is also undisputed fact that Rs. 1O,OO,0OO/_ advance was paid arid the remaining balance was to be paid in 9O days. While alleging that the petitioner has sold the propert5r to Vidya Devi Jain and Nanda Devi Bumb under registered sale deeds, respondent No.2 tailed to explain what was his arrd his friend,s capacity to pay f { 72 r the remaining balance arnount of Rs.50,00,OOO/- in the 9O days time period. The intention of fraud could have been attributed to the petitioner and his brother in case they have sold the property while the Agreement of sale was still in force during the 90 days time period or at least during the limitation period up to September, 2019. The petitioner and his brother did not sell the land for three years and during this entire time period, there is every probability for respondent No.2 and his friend Banuka Mallikarjun to purchase the propert5r either with the consent of the petitioner or by approaching the competent civil court. Much after the expiry of limitation when the petitioner sold the property to Vidya Devi Jain and Nanda Devi Bumb, that too after giving a paper publication, no fraud can be attributed to him. The offence of fraud can be attributed to the petitioner and his brother in case they have sold the property in favour of Vidya Devi Jain and Nanda Devi Bumb behind the back of respondent No.2 and his friend Banuka Mallikarjun while they were ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. In the instant case, respondent No.2 did not whisper about the readiness to pay the balance sa-le consideration while making allegations of fraud against the petitioner. In the circumstances, 13 it appears that on account of many fold increase of value of the property during the four years time period, respondent No 2 who has seen a loss intended to make a u'rongful gain by alleging criminal offence against the petitioner as there was no scope for filing a case on the twin counts of returning of the original Agreement of sale and expiry of limitation period'

14. Coming to the allegation of abuse of respondent No'2 by using the name of caste, it is alleged that respondent No 2 ald his triend Banuka Mal'likarjun were pre motivated and induced into entering Agreement and loss was caused to a tune of Rs,2,O0,OO,OOO/ - and when the sarne was questioned in local area before the lvitnesses and known people, thel' were scoided and abused in the name of caste ald therefore, the petitioner has committed offence under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act' Such a vague allegation does not stand scrutiny as the petitioner has no subsisting interest in the property which is already tralsferred to Vidya Devi Jain and Nanda Devi Bumb' The likeiihood of the petitioner being present at the property is remote. Also, there are no specifics about what is the abusive language used to scold respondent No.2 and before whom, to

1.. 14 prlma facie believe herein commission of offence by the petitioner Rs.2,O0,0O,OO0/_

15. The allegation of being cheated to a tune of does not stand scrutiny for the simple reason that respondent No.2 and his fried Banuka Mallikarjun have paid only Rs. 10,OO,OOO/- towards advance sale consideration and have received the same back without any protest and did not take any civii action before the limitation expired. When the respondent No.2 and his friend have paid only Rs.1O,00,0OO/_ and also received the same back, the question of being cheated to a tune of Rs'2,00,o0,000/-does not arise. such an alregation is nothing but an attempt of abuse of process of criminal juslics aimed at extorting money by ,rm twisting the petitioner. Similarly, making an allegation of abuse on the basis of caste without giving specifics is also an abuse of provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act which are meaflt for protecting certain communities from social discrimination.

76. In view of the foregoing considered opinion that no case agamst the petitioner/accused discussion, this Court is of the is made out by the respondents for commission of offence under i, '1 15 Section 42O of IPC as weli as Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2O 15 and therefore, the proceedings against him in S.C.Spl.No.16 of 2023 are liable to be quashed 17 . In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings 1n S.C.Spl.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad, against the petitioner/ accused are hereby quashed Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending, shall stand clo sed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGISTRAR gr SECTION OFFICER I I I l I I One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA (For Her Ladyships kind perusal) To,

1. The court of the Vl Additional metropolitan Sessions Judge at secunderabad 2. The Station House Officer, Begumpet police Station, Hyderabad. 3. 11 LR Copes 4. The Under Secretary, Union of India Ministry of law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

5. The Secretary Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings Hyderabad.

6. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana At Hyderabad [OUT]

7. One CC to SRt, B ROHTTH YADAV, Advocate IOPUCI 8. One CC to SRt p.NARAStMHULU, Advccate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies pcsd/gli \ I I 1 i .+ t' 4,',! ..6nf' =-- HIGH COURT DATED:20 tOBt2O2s ORDER ( e o o t-iF- Sl41 (, 01 Ec iJ P 2[25 CRLP.No.630 ot 2024 * .!ED /j ALLOWNG THE CRIMINAL PETITION @ p )4