The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 oI Cr.P .C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.78 of 2017 on the file of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. l.A. NO: 1OF 2023 Petition under section 4g2 0f cr.p .c. praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim orders granted in r,A.No.01 of 2019 in crr.p.No .r365 of 2019 dated 13.03 2019 whereby this court has stayed further proceedings in c'c No.7B of 2017 on the fire of X Addr. chief Metroporitan Magistrate at Secunderabad. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri Vedura srinivas' Senior counser for the petitioner and Sri E Ganesh, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. The Court made the following Order : I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMTNAL PETITION NO. 1365 OF 2019 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.J by the petitioner/ Accused to quash'the proceedings in CC.No.78 of 2Ol7 on the file of X Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad' The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 42O, 465, 468, 47O and 47 I of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for R3 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1"t respondent - State. Perused the record.

3. Briefly, the background of the case is that during the year 1997 , thre petitioner agreed to purchase a flat from the 3'd respondent/complainant. Token advance of Rs.75,000/- was also paid. There was a clause in the agreement of sale t}:,at 2loh interest p.a. should be paid by the petitioner on the delayed amounts for the period of delay. The petitioner/Al failed to pay second instalment and further balance sale consideration as agreed in the agreement. The petitioner/Al with the help of A2 2 \ has tampered the said agreement of sale' Thereafter' petitioner/A1 frled civil suit vide OS.No'13/1999 on 23'02'1999 on the fi1e of Additionat Chief Judge, City Civi'l Court, Secunderabad' for specilic performance of ttre agreement of sale' The said suit was decreed on 05.03.2002- The Civil Court found that there was tampering in the clauses of the agreement of sale with respect of the material balance sale consideration. However, the court found that the amounts were paid by the petitioner herein as advance and accordingly, directed to refund the amount paid by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) with l2Yo interest. The petitioner then lrled E.P.No.29 of 2009 in OS'No'13/1999 and-the same was disposed off directing the J-Drs to pay the outstanding amount along with interest. The said EP proceedings were questioned before this Court by filing CRP.No'4212 of 2Ol4' The said CRP filed by the respondent was dismissed' Against the dismissal of the CRP, the complainant then approached the Honourable Supreme Court by filing SLP vide SLP(C)No'3ll4al2OI5' The HonourableSupremeCourtdeclinedtointerferewiththeorderof this Court in dismissing the CRP, however, left open the prospect of settlement with the Decree Holder, before the executing court. With the said observation the SLP was dismissed. 7 3

4. After dismissal of the SLp by the Supreme Court, private complaint was filed before the Magistrate by the respondents herein alleging offence of forgery. The learned Magistrate referred the case for the purpose of investigation. Having concluded investigation, Police, Maredpally, filed charge sheet.

5. In the charge sheet fiied it is alleged that the main clause of undertaking to pay the remaining amount was fabricated. The witnesses who were cited in the charge sheet are the complainant, the owner of the land and the Investigating Officer.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the proceedings which are filed before the civil court were concluded and the Civil Court had directed the payment of amount that was initially paid by the petitioner along with interest. The question of either criminal breach of trrst or cheating does not arise.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant relied on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Priti Saraf q.nd. o;nother o. State (NCT of Delhi) and. qnothert wherein it is held that; ' 12021 1 l6 Sup.e-e Coun Cases 142 I i I I the basrb of "27. It is thus settled that the exercise of inherent power of the High Court b an extraordinary power uLhbh lzas to be exerci-sed with great care and circumspection before embarking to scrutinize the comp\aint/ FIR/ charge-sheet in deciding whether the case is the rarest of rare ca.se, to scuttle the prosecution as its inception. 31. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/ FIR/ charge-sheet, in our uiew, it cannot be said that the complaint does not di-sclose the commi"ssion of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 4O6 and 42O of IPC cannot be said to be absent complaint/ FIR/ charge-sheet. We u.tould like to add that uthether the allegations in the amplaint are otherruise correct or not, has to be d.ecid.ed on the iasis of the euidence to be led duing the course of triat. Simptg because there is a remedg prouided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the trustance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that ctuil remedg is the onlg remedg, and" the initiation of criminal proceedings, in ang manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exerci.sing inherent pou)ers of the High Court under Secti.on 482 Cr.P.C for quashing such proceedings.' the allegations in

8. l,earned Counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute the fact that payments were made as advance initially when the agreement of sale was entered into. The fact remains 7 5 that the civil court did not grant the relief of specific performance however, restricted the relief of returning the amount that was paid to the complainant.

9. To attract the offence of Section 406 of IpC, it has to be proved that any amount that was entrusted was misappropriated. The question of mis-appropriation in the present facts does not arise. In fact, the amount was given by the petitioner herein to the

2.d respondent which was confirmed by the Civil Court.

10. The offence of cheating would made out if there is any mis- representation and pursuant to such mis-representation, the person should have been induced and parted with the property. I 1. In the present case, except stating that there was tampering with the material clause of payment of remaining instalments, it is not the case that on the basis of the agreement of sale, the respondent in any manner induced or pursuant to such inducement, he had incurred any wrongful loss. The only allegation is that of tampering. It is not stated by the counsel for the complainant as to how the alleged tampering in the material clause of repayment had in any manner caused loss to him. The complainant was the owner of the propert5r and the petitioner wanted to purphase the property and advanced the amount. The \ I l I :u \ -l \ 6 document which is the agreement of sale if at all was tampered according to the complainant, it is not stated as to how the said tampering had affected him in any manner whatsoever. The Court has not taken into consideration such alleged tampering and it is not specificallr, mentioned by the Civil Court that tampering had taken place and it was suspected that tampering might have been done. The document was not sent to any hand-writing expert for opinion to knou' whether any tampering was done in respect of the clause of agrecment of sale. None of the ingredients of Section 465 of IPC for preparing false document are also made out.

12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of trial before the trial Court, the complainant would have taken steps to send the document to handwriting expert. The document was way back in the year 1997 and for nearly 26 years, no steps were taken to seek assistance of any handwriting expert to know whether there was any tampering. The said argrment of the counsel cannot be entertained.

13. Since none of the ingredients of any of the provisions are made out, the case against the petitioner deserved to be quashed.

74. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in CC.No.78 of 2Ol7 on the file 7 7 of X Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, for the offences under Sections 406, 42O, 465, 468, 470 and 477 of Indian Penal Code. Misceilaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD REGISTRAR ASSIS E ION OFFICER To, 1 2 , 4 b VA/gh The X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad The Station House Officer, P.S. Marredpally, Hyderabad City Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State. of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Vedula Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri S Lakshmi Kanth, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies l l l l I I h I HIGH COURT DATED:27101t2025 ORDER CRLP.No.1365 of 2019 1 Hr. sl 14 ttB zffi i9 7 t * ALLOWING THE CRLP q .ir