The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVV,\DI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITIO N No.5121 OF 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petit oners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C C No 13362 of 2020 on the file of the learned lll Additional Chief lVletropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 3rj4, 420, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short ,lpC,) 02 Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the lState Even after service of notice, none appeared on b,ehalf of the unofflcial respondent No.2. Perused the mater al on record. 03(a) The case of the prosecution, in brierf, is that the ! petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, who are builders residing in the same apartment as respondent No.2 and her mother at Frrends'Colony, represented to them thet they were constructing a new apartment at Road No.10 Etanjara Hills, 2 \-*-1 - and offered to sell flats therein. Believing their words, the respondent No.2 purchased two flats in the name of her mother by paying an advance of Rs.10,00,0001 and agreeing to pay Rs.56,00,000/- for each flat. Agreements were executed for Flat Nos.402 and 50'1 . Subsequently, the petitioners-accused informed respondent No.2 that Flat No.402 had been promised to another purchaser and requested her to accept Flat No.201 in its place, to which she consented. O3(b). By the year 2016, the respondent No 2 had paid a total of Rs.94,50,000/-, but the petitioners-accused failed to complete the construction. On persistent demands, they handed over possession of under-construction Flat Nos.50'1 and 2O2. Further, on 01.10.2019 at about 16:30 hours, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly attempted to trespass into Flat No.501. When the respondent No 2 and her mother resisted, the petitioners-accused pushed them in the presence of an electrician, outraged their modesty, and criminally intimidated them with threats to vacate the flats and with dire consequences. / 3 04(a). Learned counsel for the petitione.s; submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have noth ng to do with the alleged offences. lt is contended that n,) dishonest or fraudulent intention can be attributed to flrem from the inception of the transaction. The present crinrinal case has been instituted as a counterblast to the civil dispute in O S.No.2280 ot 2019 on the file of the learned Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein thr-. petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 filed a sult seeking injr,nction against respondent No.2, which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated iO.Ol.2023. 04(b). lt is further submitted that the resrr:ndent No.2, having failed to comply with her part of the acn:ement, was asked to vacate the flat, whereupon she lodgerc the present false criminal case against the petitioners-ar:c:used Nos.1 and 2. lt is further brought to notice that the res,pondent No.2 herself instituted O.S No.74 of 2O2O against tire, petitioners_ accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking specific performance of agreement, which is still pending adjudicaticn before the learned Xl Additional Chief Judge, City rlivil Court, .Fr .r.-il r. \ - 't 4 Hyderabad. The allegations leveled against the petitioners- accused Nos.'1 and 2 are false, baseless, and fabricated only for the purpose of the present case Oa(c). lt is further contended that there is no incriminating material on record to substantiate the allegations, and there is also an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature, and respondent No.2 is attempting to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 354, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 lPC. Hence, he prayed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.'l and 2 be quashed

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent No.1 contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioners at this 5 juncture and the matter is to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismis:; this Criminal Petition

06. lt is a well-settled principle of law :hat, in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of lPC, ttr:re must be a dishonest or fraudulent intention to deceive .he respondent No.2 from the very inception of the transactiorr. Likewise, for invoking Section 506 of lPC, there must Lre a specific allegation that the accused persons tirreatened the respondent No.2 with injury to his or her person, reputation, or property, or to the person or reputation rtf someone in whom he or she is interested, with the intenlion of causing alarm or compelling him or her to act against his or her will. Similarly, to constitute an offence under Sectirtn 354 of lpC, there must be a specific allegation of assarurlt or use of criminal force against a woman with the intenti<ln of outraging her modesty, or rvith the knowledge that such act is likely to have that effect ln the absence of the:se essential ingredients, the invocation of the aforesaid penal provisions is unsustainable in law. 6

07. Having considered the submissions advanced on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, along with respondent No.2 and her mother, have been residing in the same apartment complex at Friends' Colony It is an admitted fact that agreements were entered into between the parties with regard to the purchase of flats. Pursuant to an understanding, the petitioners-accttsed Nos.1 and 2 informed the respondent No.2 to take possession of a different flat, to which she consented. Thereafter, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 failed to complete the construction. However, the record discloses that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.2280 of 2019 on the file of the learned Vll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an injunction against the respondent No.2, which was decreed in their favour vide Judgment and decree dated 10.07.2023. Thus, it is evident that the injunction order is subsisting in favour of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. ln view of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the petitioners- 7 accused Nos l and 2 had dishonest or fraudule,nt intention to cheat the respondent No 2 from the inr;eption of the transaction Consequently, the allegations clo not disclose any prima facie material to satisfy the ingredi:rrts necessary to constitute the offence punishable under ljr:ction 420 of IPC

08. A careful perusal of the charge sheert reveals that the dispute essentially pertains to property transactions between the parties. Except for a vague alle3iation that the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened the respondent No.2 to vacate the flats, there is no specific irssertion as to the nature of the alleged act which could have <;aused alarm in the mind of the respondent No.2 so as tc attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under fjerction 506 of IPC lt is further alleged that the respondent l,lo 2 and her mother were pushed down a staircase cons sting of eight steps and that their modesty was outraged in tirer presence of lr/r. Patrick and ljas, who are stated to br> electricians. However, in order to substantiate the aforesarc allegations, the lnvestigating Officer did not examine an;, independent 8 witness, medical officer, or the persons named Mr. Patrick and ljas, who were allegedly present at the scene of offence at the time of the incident

09. lt is also an admitted fact that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 01.10.2019, whereas the complaint came to be lodged only on 13.11.2019. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of more than one month in setting the criminal law into motion. Such unexplained delay, being inordinate, casts a serious doubt on the genuineness and veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2

10. lt is pertinent to note that the investigation conducted subsequent to the registration of the FIR and prior to the filing of the charge sheet constitutes a crucial stage in criminal proceedings. The charge sheet is required to reflect the outcome of such investigation, duly supported by material evidence sufficient to establish the alleged offences However, in the present case, no independent witness has been examined by the lnvestigating Officer to substantiate t - I the basic allegations against the petitioners_accused Nos. 1 and 2. Out of the three witnesses cited, two arr-" respondent No.2 and her mother, while the third witress is the lnvestigating Officer. Above all, surprisingly the persons namely Mr Patrick and ljas, who were allegedry present at the scene of offence at the time of the incident, were not examined. However, the allegations appear to be of a purely civil in nature Therefore, the initiation and c,rrrtinuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused cannot be sustained in law. 11 ln Sfafe of Haryana and others v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and othersl the Hon,ble Supreme Court o., lndia held "ln the exercise of the extra_ordinary power under Afticle 226 or the inherent powers under Section 4g2 of the Code of Ciminat procedure, the fo o uiing categones o/ cases are given by way of illustraton wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Coun or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it ,nay not be possible to lay down any precise. cte a1y ' r 992 scc (supp) 1 335 10 \r defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide myiad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (l) where the altegations made in the First lnformation Report or tne complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (2) Re F.l where the allegations in the First lnfoniation porl and other mateials, if any' accompanying the .R. do not disclose a cognizable offence' iustifying investigation by potice officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the uncontrovefted allegations made in ie fn or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (!) where the allegations n the FtR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 1 55(2) of the Code; (!) where the allegations made in the FIR or comptaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach 11 a just conclusion that there is sufficient grcund for proceeding against the accused; (9) where there is an express legal bar engrarted in any of the provisions of the Code or the cott:emed Act (under which a ciminal proceeding is instiiuted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in tt e Code or the concemed Act, providing efficacious recrerss /or the gievance of the aggrieved pafty; Q)where a ciminal proceeding is manifestty atbnded with mala fide and/or where the procee jilg is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with zt view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.'

12. ln the present case, as discusseJ hereinabove, the material on record clearly indicates that .l^e petitioners_ accused Nos 'l and 2 and the respondent No 2 have been residing in the same apartment and that the e lleged incident is stated to have taken place on 01.10.20.1 9 However, the complaint came to be lodged only on 13.11 2:019, thereby resulting in an unexplained and inordinate delay in setting the criminal law in motion. Furthermore, no independent witness, medical officer, or the persons named Mr. palrick and ljas have been examined to substantiate the allegations leveled 12 against the petitioners-accused Nos l and 2 There is no materialonrecordtosuggestanyelementofcheatingor fraudulent intention attributable to the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 from the inception of the transaction so as to constitute an offence under Section 42O of IPC' Likewise' there is no incriminating evidence to demonstrate that the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 2 caused any alarm in the mind of respondent No 2 so as to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC' Similarly' there is no sufficient material to establish the allegations constituting an offence under Section354lPC.ltisalsonotindisputethattherespondent No.2 has instituted O S No'74 of 2O2O against the petitioners-accused Nos' 1 and 2 seeking specific performance of agreement' which is still pending adjudication before the learned Xl Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Court' Hyderabad. However' an injunction is subsisting in favour of the petitioners-accused Nos'1 and 2 vide Judgment and decree dated '10 07 2023 passed in O S No 2280 of 2019 by the learned Vll Junior Civil Judge, CitY Civil Court, Therefore, the Hyderabad against the respondent No'2 t. i... , - 13 allegations, on the face of it, appear to be ,:1 a purely civil nature. Hence, even if the contents of the clterrge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in therir entirety, they do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 Hence, the present case falls within the parameters o' point No.3 of Bhajan Lal's case cited supra 1 \ 'l 3. ln view of the aforementionej facts and circumstances and having regard to tlre well-settled principles of law enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the essential ingredienls necessary to constitute the offences under Sections 354. .120 506 read with 34 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners- accused Nos.'1 and 2. Hence, the contnuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed t \i 14

14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.'13362 of 2020 on the file of the learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, are herebY quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The lll Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad' 2. The SHO Banjara Hills Polic€ Station, Hyderabad 3 One CC lo SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYIAdvocate IOPUC] d One CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] <. Two CO Copies PK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:25109t2025 ALLOWED CRLP.No.S'121 of 2024 ip,E SI4 14: 6( I I {.\ 2 5 r'ro1, 2p5 0zl Sr,.1iC H F-o { .