The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7491 OF 2024 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.423 of 2024 pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, (for short 'the learned trial Court') registered for the offences under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of the lndian Penal Code (for short'lPC')

02. Heard Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri [/l.Rarnachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1 as well as Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the record. 03(a). The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is the complainant. lt is alleged that in May, 2017, the accused No.1 approached the respondent No.2 representing herself to be the absolute owner and possessor 1 \ 1 \ 2 .- \- of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.g0A/UU admeasuring Ac.2-01 guntas, situated at Khairatapur Villal; r, Choutuppal [Vlandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, having acqri red the same through a registered Gift Setflement Deed bear ng Document No.4105 of 2007, dated '12.07.2007, executerl by her father one Velma Ram Reddy. Accused No.1 is offr: ed to sell the said property for valuable consideration and fur of the aforesaid Gift Setflement Deed to flr rished a copy : respondent No.2. Thereafter, at the request of the respor< ent No.2, the accused No.1 took him to the said surve) number and showed a piece of land, asserting it to be her ov 'n. 03(b). lt is further alleged that believing t re same, the respondent No.2 paid the entire sale considerir ion, pursuant to which the accused No.1 executed a registei ,d Sale Deed bearing Document No.2544 of ZO17 dated 0 t.05.2017, in favour of the respondent No.2. Subsequenfly, ir t June,2022, one Velma Pedda Ram Reddy and othe rs allegedly trespassed into the said property purchir ;ed by the respondent No.2 and attempted to interfere wifl- his peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof. When quer tioned about -7 3 their interference, they informed the respondent No.2 that the accused No.1 and her father did not own any land in the said survey number, as the father of the accused No. 1 had already sold his share of the land to third parties long ago. lt was stated that the father of the accused No.1, who was the owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.80A/UU, admeasuring Ac.2-O1 guntas situated at Khairatapur Village, had sold an extent of Ac.1-14 guntas to one Chanda Ravinder and four others through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1399 of 1993, dated 28.06.1993, and that out of the remaining extent, Ac.0-23 % guntas had been acquired by the National Highways Authority of lndia (NHAI) long back for the purpose of widening NH-9, leaving no land available with the said Velma Ram Reddy. 03(c). However, as the purchasers failed to mutate their names in the revenue records, the name of Velma Ram Reddy c.ontinued to stand in the said records. On knowing the same, the respondent No.2 obtained a certified copy of the Sale Deed bearing Document No.139g of .1993 verified that the father of the accused No.1 had indeed \ 4 alienated an extent of Ac.01-14 guntas to thirc parties and that the remaining land had been acquired by I HAI for road expansron 03(d). lt is alleged that taking undue adii ntage of the fact that the revenue records still reflected he name of Velma Ram Reddy, the accused Nos.1 and ll in collusion with the said Velma Ram Reddy, fraudulert y created a registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Docur ent No.4106 of 2OO7 dated 12.07.2007, in favour of the ac: rsed No.1 in respect of the already alienated land. Based or the said Gift Settlement Deed, the accused No.1 subseque ntly sold the property to the respondent No.2 under a re1 istered Sale Deed for valuable consideration, thereby alleglcdly cheating the respondent No.2 and causing wrongful loss to him while obtaining wrongful gain for themselves 03(e). lt is further alleged that the accuse( Nos.1 and 2 were fully aware of the prior sale of the said pr: rerty by their father as well as the acquisition by NHAI, but vith malafide intention and taking advantage of the revenut> entries, they fabricated the said Gift Setflement Deed to deceive innocent purchasers. On discovering the said facts, when the respondent No.2 confronted the accused Nos.1 and 2 and demanded refund of the sale consideration, they allegedly threatened him with dire consequences to see his end with the help of anti-social elements.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they are nothing to do with the alleged offences. All the allegations levelled in the charge sheet are false and baseless. There is suppression of material facts in the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 that he filed a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2022 on the fite of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal against the petitioner-accused No. 1 and others wherein the subject property was shown as suit schedule 'A' property, which is pending for adjudlcation. The present complaint was lodged after six years after execution of the sale deed. The police without any proper investigation filed the charge sheet. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 to cheat the respondent \ 6 \-=": \ \] \ No.2. The contents of the charge sheet do nol disclose the - required ingredients to attract the offences ur jer Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of lPC. The allegations are of purely civil in nature but the respondent No.2 is tryirg to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute. Hence. I e prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-err cused Nos.1 and 2.

05. On the other hand, learned Adrl :ional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-responden: No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the unofficial res6 ondent No.2 contended that there are triable issues and faclt al aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is; rot a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petit r ners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after cc nducting full- fledged trial by the learned trial Court and pra'r d to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

06. Having regard to the submissions rr lde on either side and upon perusal of the record, it is evider t that the gift deed in question WAS A registered docur ent bearing 7 No.4105 of 2007, executed in favour of petitioner_accused No.1 by her father. Further, it is apparent from the record that the respondent No.2 has instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.164 of 2022 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, against the petitioner_accused No.1 and four others, wherein the subject property is shown as the suit schedule 'A' property, and the said suit is pending adjudication

07. A careful perusal of the record discloses that the allegations made are civil in nature. The sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 was executed on 09.05.20.17, and ever since, the respondent No.2 has been in peaceful possession of the subject property. The FIR in the present case was lodged only in the year 2023, thereby indicating an admitted delay of six years in lodging the complaint. Upon a meticulous examination of the material on record, it is evident that the dispute between the parties appears to be civil in nature. Furthermore, it is to be noted that a civil suit had already been instituted prior to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings, which is pending adjudication before \ \4, \ -- -*q!q \,)\,i\i i the competent civil court, where the respective 'ights of the parties can be effectively determined. There is no material on record to indicate any dishonest or fraudulerrl intention on the part of the petitioners-accused Nos.l anrl 2 so as to constitute the offence of cheating as alleged. r sofar as the allegation under Section 506 IPC is concerned lhere are no specific averments as to the manner in which ttr : petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have caLsed criminal intimidation to the respondent No.2.

08. ln Sfafe of Haryana and others u Ch.Bhaian Lal and othersl the Hon'ble Supreme Court lf lndia held that: "ln the exercise of the extra-ordinary power L Afticle 226 or the inherent powers under Sectior of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the foltc categories of cases are given by way of illus'r wherein such power could be exercised eith prevent abuse of fhe process of any Co,t otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it not be possible to lay down any precise, '; defined and sufficiently channelised and inf't guide myiad kinds of cases wherein such r should be exercised: 482 'r to =arly )wer ' rggz scc (supp) 't ggs I (l) where the allegations made in the First lnformation Repofi or the 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; @ where the allegations in the First tnformation Repoft and other mateials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Secllon 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 1 55(2) of the Code; (!) where the uncontrovefted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in suppotl of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (!) where the allegations in the FIR 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 155(2) of the Code; (!) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basr's of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (9) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concemed Act (under which a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concemed Act, providing efficacious redress for the gievance of lhe aggieved pafty; \ '10 \ Q)where a criminal proceeding is manifestly afie lded with mala fide and/or where the proceedl g is maliciously instituted with an ulteior motit,t for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to pivate and personal grudge."

09. ln the present case on hand, as ot) ;erved supra, the alleged transaction took place in the year 1l )17, whereas the complaint came to be registered only in the, lear 2023. ll is evident from the record that the responde nt No.2 had already approached the competent civil cou 1 prior to the initiation of the present criminal proceedings, wherein the petitioner-accused No.1, along with others, has reen arrayed as one of the defendants. ln support of t,r -. allegations levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos and 2, the prosecution has examined as many as sev: r witnesses Among them, two witnesses are the respondent No.2 and his brother, who are admittedly interested witne:; ;es; two are panch witnesses; and one is the lnvestigating Sfficer. lt is peftinent to note that one neighbour, who was ;hown as an eyewitness, stated about the land transactior between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-accused [rr .1; however, despite being cited as an eyewitness, his ;tatement is 11 completely silent with regard to any act of criminal intimidation allegedly caused to the respondent No.2. Further, the said Velma Ram Reddy, who is alleged to have interfered with the possession of the respondent No.2, was not examined by the lnvestigating Officer, which omission is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Significanfly, no independent witness has been examined by the lnvestigating Officer. Even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not, prima facie, constitute any of the alleged offences against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, and the , ) material collected during the course of investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, does not disclose the commission of any offence so as to make out a case against them. Hence, the present case falls within the ambit of point Nos. 1 and 3 of Ch.Bhajan Lal's case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings I I against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. \

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition s allowed and the criminal proceedings against the peti,ilners_accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.423 of 2024 pending or the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Choutuppal, yada< ri Bhdvanagiri District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous e pplications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII l) SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR (9 SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt. Justice Juvva< i Sridevi (For Her Ladyships kind perusal) Affarrs, New Delhi To, I 1 Il" Junior Civil Judge Court, Choutuppal, yadadri Bhuvrr ragiri I ? IP 11 ?r.: Executive IVagistrate/Tahsitdar, Choutuppal /adadri Bhuvanagiri I 3 11 LR Copies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Jur; ce and Company 5 The secretary, Advocates Association Library, High cou r for the state of 6. The Station House Officer, Choutuppal police Station, Rirr hsftep62 7. fwo CCs to Public prosecutor, High Court for the State cf felangana at 8. One CC to Sri Veera Babu Gandu, Advocate [OpUC] 9. One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate tOpUCl 'l0.Two CD Copies Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad Hyderabad [OUT] ABK /PSL I -.-l *5;i*-*.;. -*-*,. . ^. .. .. -l HIGH COURT DATED: 3111012025 ORDER CRLP.No.7491 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION \ ^h K, \ 1HE SI4 3t K I I t ':tB ?m6 *