Enturi Sri Babu v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner in CC No. 293 ol 2020 on the file of lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioner is concerned in CC No. 293 of 2020 on the file of lAdditional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem, BhadradriKothagudem District, in the interest of justice Thrs Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Surendra Desai, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri E Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri P Rama sharana Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: OROER 7 ) THE HONO'URABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUG()PAL CRII\4IN.AL PETITION No.3810 OF 2O2L ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 <tf t.he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') to rluash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/ accused in C.O.No.293 of 2O2O, on the lile of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem, Bhaclradri Kothagudem District, registert d for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioncr, learn<.d counsel lor the 2nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondc nt No.'.r. f de facto complainant lodged a telugu written complaint on 15.O6.2019 before the Kothagudem-l Town Police Station allegine tha r he has purchased an agricr"rltural land to an extent o[ Ac. 1-O3 guntas in Sy.No.294lA and 295/ H situated at OId Kothagudem vide regisrered sale deed bearing No.148/2O06 for valuable consrderation. Accordingly, the said property has been delivered and the defacto complainant has been in the possession and enjoyment of the said property till the present complaint has been filed. It is further alleged that the sai<l property has been mutated in the revenue records.End accordingly, pattadar passbooks were issuecl rrncl the 2 name of the defacto complainant has been reflected in the pahanis. While so, one Venkata Satya Varaprasad tried to occupy the above said land of the defacto complainant stating that he had purchased the said land through onlinc auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Court, Hyderabad. [mmediately, the defacto complainant hied a petition and the same \r:as dismissed. Challenging the same, a writ petition vide W.P.No. 175 I ol 2O19 was filed. It is further alleged that the vendor of thc defacto complainant i.e., Doctor Inturi Sree Babu colluding with his vendor Eedpuganti Venkata Satya Vara Prasad had sold the disputcd land to him concealing the fact that the loan was obtained on the said lzrnd and the same was auctioned by the Tribunal, as the loan obtained by'A-2 was not repaid. Even the Encumbrance Certificate issued b-y the Sub-Registrar Office does not disclose the said transaction. Accordingl-y, complaint has been Iiled, investigation is conducted and as many as 10 witnesses were examined. Whiie the subject matter is pending, the present petition is filed seeking quashmcnt o[ the said proceedings against the petitione r.

4. Learned counscl for the pe titioner would submit that the petitioner herein who has been arrayed as A- 1 admittedly is the vendor who has sold the subject propcrty to the defacto complainant and had no knowledgc about thc subject property being mortgaged by A-2 with the Bank. Suppressing the said fact, A-2 had sold the .;l 3 subject property to the petitioner/A-1 and accordingly, the petitioncr herein unknowing thc fact that the subject propert)' has been mortgaged with Bank by A-2 purchased the said prr,perty lor valuable consideration from A-2 and thereafter, sold the s.rlr-re to the defacto complainant. The petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser. He lurther submits that the complaint has been filed against the peti[ioner herein after a lapse of 1O years which does not support the limitation act. The petitioner has no role in mortgaging the lancl to the Bank by A-2. Hence, subjecting the petitioner to the criminal proceedings would amounts to abuse of process oI lalv and accordingly, seeks intervention of this Court to cruash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing for defacto complainant /respondent No.2 would submit that thorough investigation has been conducted for four long years and accordingly, charge sheet was laid. As manv as 10 witnesses were brought on tho Memo of evidence and they need to be examined by the trial Court. Lle further submits that the petitioner herein/A-1 colluding u,ith A-2 had sold the property to the defacto complainant suppressing the f;tct that the said property has been mortgaged with the Bank b,v A-2. Taking away the propert)' of the defacto complainant would siphDn his hard earned money. The lacts that are suppressed by A-l/peLitioner and A-2 can be elicitcd b1, u,ay of thorough trial bv exarnining the witnesses. Therefore, intcrfcrcnce o[ this Court at this stagc is not warranted. Hence, seeks to dismiss the petition. )

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosccutor taking the same stand as that of learned counsel for the unofficial rcspondent submits that thorough investigation has bcen conducted and witnesses have been examined. He further submits that the allegation against the pe titioner that the defacto complaint was cheated by petitioner/A- 1 and A-2 by suppressing the fact tl-rat the property purchased by him was earlier mortgaged by A-2 with the llank, would only be elicited in the trial by verifying the lacts. In thcsc circumstances, he seeks dismissal of the criminal petition.

7. Having regard to the rival contcntions and material placed before this Court, without markirrg any observations on merits or demerits of the case, as sought try the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the trial Court ancl raise all the contentions raised before this Court by filing a discharge application. Upon hling such application" uninfluenced by any ol the observations made by this Court, the trial Court shall dccidc the said application strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Insofar as appearance of the petitioner is conccrned, as sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appcarancc of the petitioner is dispensed with. However, hc shall appear Lhe before the trial Court I as and when directed by the trial Court. He shall be representcd either by himself or through his counsel. To that effect, he shall file an affidavit. In delaulr of the same, it is made clear thzrt the relief granted b.v this Court stands cancelled. 8 With the above observations, the Criminal petition is clisposecl if any pending, shall zrlso srancl of. Misccllaneorrs applications, closcd SDi, U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SiECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kothagudem 2. The station House Officer, Kothagudem- ltown Police Station , Bhadradri I Kothagudem District

3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri Surendra Desai, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri P Rama sharana Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ADK/PSI- P,"'.q HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ) ORDER CRLP.No.3810 oI 2021 2 7 0[T Zflfi oc.3 t,ATCi li-o I DISPOSING OF THE CRLP P,r.C,. -p:1 rol>f