High Court · 2011

Order

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.545 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Prohibition & Excise. The petitioners are A1, A2 and A4 and second respondent is the defacto-complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the calendar case. Before going into the merits of the case, it is necessary to

consider the brief facts of the prosecution case. A1 to A4 claiming to be the owners of Plot No.4 in Sy.No.141 admeasuring 7853.89 sq.mtrs. situated at Industrial Development Area, Kadapa belonging to M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Plasticizers Ltd., for a consideration of Rs.38.00 lakhs entered into an agreement of sale with the defacto complainant who paid an amount of Rs.9.00 lakhs A1 to A4 as advance and accordingly executed a document on the even date incorporating necessary conditions (it is not stated the relationship of A1 to A4 with the said company). Further, on 6.7.2007 the defacto-complainant paid the balance consideration of Rs.29.00 lakhs, whereas A1 to A4 promised to register the property in his name, but they committed default. Therefore, on 10.1.2008, the defacto- complainant got issued a legal notice in that context, for which A1 to A4 gave reply. Further, having suspected the conduct of A1 to A4, on

25.1.2008 the defacto complainant obtained relevant encumbrance certificate and found that the same property was sold under a registered sale deed dated 17.7.2007 to one Sujanakumari, who is the Managing Director of the company, hence the defacto complainant understood that A1 to A4 having made him to believe that they were the owners of the property involved in executing the agreement of sale fraudulently. Further, he went and questioned A1 to A4 about the fraud placed by them, following which they threatened him with dire consequences. It is contended on behalf of A1 to A4 that originally the property belonged to M/s Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Plasticizers Ltd., and four Directors of it agreed to sell the property to A1 to A4 and executed an agreement of sale dated 18.8.2006 and the Directors promised to execute regular sale deed either in the name of A1 to A4 or their nominee. Further, they also entered into another agreement in favour of Sujanakumari W/o Gangadhara Reddy and Gangadhara Reddy and after observing necessary formalities, the registered sale deed dated

17.7.2007 was executed by them in the name of Sujanakumari and further in fact the sale deed dated 17.7.2007 was executed by virtue of understanding among the defacto complainant, themselves and Suryakumari and therefore they did not commit any offence and ultimately, the calendar case is to be quashed. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings in the calendar case. Emphatically, there is no denial from A1 to A4 about the execution of agreement of sale dated 29.3.2007 favour of the defacto- complainant with regards to the property in question. Further, there is no good basis to say that only in accordance with some understanding among A1 to A4, the defacto complainant, the said Sujanakumari and her husband Gangadhara Reddy, the sale deed dated 17.7.2007 was executed in favour of Sujanakumari. It is also emphatical that even according to A1 to A4, on 18.8.2006 itself, they executed an agreement of sale in favour of Gangadhara Reddy and Sujanakumari. Therefore, even though such agreement of sale was existing, they executed the agreement of sale dated 29.3.2007 favour of the defacto- complainant for the same property. Prima facie, it is not the claim of A1 to A4 that while executing the agreement of sale dated 29.3.2007, they informed the defacto complainant about the prior agreement of sale dated 18.8.2006. Therefore prima facie it appears that suppressing prior agreement of sale, they executed the later one. Further, there is a copy of letter dated 27.6.2007 addressed by P.Venkateswarlu, one of the Directors of the Company, to the Zonal Manager, A.P.I.I.C. Kadapa, which provides that because of financial problems, they wanted to execute sale deed in favour of the new Managing Director of the company namely N.Venkateswara Reddy, who is the complainant and under those circumstances, they sold away 75% share of the company to N.Venkateshwara Reddy, Gangadhar Reddy Smt.Sujanakumari elected N.Venkateswara Redy as the Managing Director and Gangadhar Reddy as the Chairman of it with a request to close the loan after complying with the same. There are also minutes of the company with regards to various aspects, which do not show the status of A1 to A4 in the company. Even though the said letter shows that the company wanted to sell away 75% shares of it to the said three persons, the property in question is not shown to be a part of it. If at all, the defacto complainant consented the registration of the property as contended on behalf of A1 to A4, they would have executed some document in that context prima facie with reference to the agreement of sale executed in favour of the defacto complainant on 29.3.2007. When there is no basis to come to such conclusion that in view of such understanding, the registered sale deed was executed in favour of Sujanakumari, the contention of the learned counsel for the Accused cannot be accepted at this stage. Further, there is prima facie material against A1 to A4 to conduct prosecution in respect of the alleged offences taking into consideration the facts that they executed the agreement of sale in favour of the defacto complainant on 29.3.2007 even though they executed the prior agreement of sale in favour of Sujanakumari and her husband Gangadhara Reddy and there is no basis to say that the registered sale deed was executed in favour of Sujanakumari subject to the cancellation of agreement of sale in favour of the defacto complainant. Therefore, necessary trial is to be conducted in order to decide the complicity of the accused with reference to the alleged offences. The Supreme Court in KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1], held as under: “Thus in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” Therefore, when there are civil and criminal liabilities in respect of an issue, both the liabilities can be decided independently. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the criminal petition and is accordingly dismissed. Date: .10.2011 DA ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011 [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624