The High Court · 2025

Order

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused No.1, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.307 of 2016 on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally at Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 42O and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short'lPC).

2. Heard Mr.K.Sathakarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Thomas Lloyd, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 2.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Respondent No.3/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner, stating that the petitioner approached her and asked her to purchase a house bearing Municipal No.8-2- 2931821A1795, situated at Road No. 36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, claiming that his company had an agreement with the original o\/ner i.e., Smt. M. Jayasree, and amounts have to be paid to her \ \ l.* l-r.. -, 2 and he would get the sale deed directly conveyed from her in favour of respondent No. 3. Believing the same, respondent No.3 entered into an agreement with the petitioner and paid an amount of Rs.14 C'rores between July and November 2013 through cheques and RTGS to the petitioner and his company i.e., M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited and she was put in possession of the said property and established her boutique under the name and style of 'Trisha Showroom'. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner failed to get the sale deed registered through M.Jayasree and postponing the registration. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 came to know that the petitioner had got the property registered in the name of his Company instead of her name and the petitioner informed to respondent No.3 that M.Jayasree was not agreed to execute Sale Deed in her favour on the ground of income tax issues. However, respondent No.3 promised her to register'the Sale Deed shortly and entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Basing upon the same, respondent No.3 prepared the Sale Deed in the month of January, 2Ol5 and petitioner signed the said document by providing all the details, photographs etc. and he promised to come to registration office to register the document. However, he kept postponing the same on one pretext or the other. At that stage, respondent No.3 came to know that the petitioner mortgaged it to , A -/ /1 3 the Andhr:r Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC) as collateral for a loan. When confronted, the petitioner admitted the fact and promised to clear the APSFC loan and execute the sale deed but fa.iled to do so. Later, APSFC issued a notice dated O2.L2.2O15 llroposing to sell the mortgaged property under Section 29 of the St.ate Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Respondent No. 3 further sta.ted that the petitioner, who was acting as Power of Attorney Holder of M/s. Dymes Engineers Private Limited, had earlier sold another property at Kokapet Village to her in December 2OI3 for a consideration of Rs. 2.5 Crores. However, after persuading her to cancel the said sale in January 2015, the petitioner failed to return the sale consideration and further'stated that the petitioner has cheated Respondent No. 3 on two occasions, having received large amounts of money from her without executing the sale deed or refund the consideration, thereby committed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.I. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed arry offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet, the nature of \ \ \ \ 4 allegations levelled against the petitioner is purely civil in nature arising out of non-execution of the registered sale deed in respect of house propert5r. Respondent No.3 has already filed suit in o.S.No.94 7 of 2o15 before the competent civil court against M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited as well as the petitioner seeking specific performance of contract and for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same propertJr with the very same allegations and the said suit is pending. suppressing the said fact, respondent No.3 liled the present complaint on 04.02.2016 to settle the civil disputes pending between them, which is not permissible under law.

4.2. He further submitted that respondent no.3 filed another suit in o.s.No.2i9 of 2oL6 on the file of the XI Additional chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad against the petitioner's company for recovery of amount and o.S.No.1803 of 2015 on the file of the III Senior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Districi at L.B.Nagar for grant of perpetual injunction against the petitioner's company and the said cases are pending.

4.3 He further submitted that Dymes Engineers private Limited represented by GPA Holder i.e. M/s. Sandhya Hotels private Limited filed suit in o.S.No.127 of 2016 on the file of the III 2 5 Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L-B.Nagar seeking specilic performance. of the contract against respondent No.3 and two others, who are none other than her husband and son, to execute and register the Cancellation Deed in their favour and the said suit is also pending.

4.4. He further submitted that in O.S.No.947 of 2015, respondent No.3, who uras examined as PW.1, admitted in her evidence about pendency of five civil suits between herself and the defendants therein and also admitted that Sale Deed under Ex.A7 and Cancellation Deed in respect of Kokapet propert5r are prepared on the same date. Hence, the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioner has not come forward to execute the Sale Deed, is not true and correct. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, M.Jayasree executed the Registered Sale Deed in the name of M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited. Respondent No.3 has not made any allegation against M.Jayasree or M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, on the other hand, lodged the complaint against the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited. The propert5r stands in the name of M/s. Sandhya Hotels Private Limited, which is not made as an accused, and as such, there is no vicarious liability on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the offences under Sections 42O arrd \: \ \ \ 6 t 406 of [PC are not attracted against the petitioner.

4.5. He also submitted that the parties have already approached the competent civil court and filed suits against each other and Suit in o.S.No.947 of 2015 in respect of the very same propert5r claimed in the present complaint is pending. Respondent No.3 with an oblique motive to resolve the civil disputes pending between the parties, filed the present complaint by putting coercion and the same is clear abuse of process of law. 4-6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Kunti and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others;1 iil S.K.AIagh vs. State of U.P.a nd others;z iii| Sarabjit Kaur vs. The State of Punjab and others3; ivl Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation4; v) Lalit Chaturyedi and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and anothersl a.ad ORDER CRLP.No.4527 of 2019 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED q 0\ &\ I