The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another

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 against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2678 of 2019 on the file of ll Additional Judicial First Class Magsitrate at Khammam. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 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 stay all further proceedings including appearance against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.2678 of 20'19 on the file qf ll Additional Judicial First Class Magsitrate at Khammam, pending disposal of the main criminal petition. l This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri M A K MUKHEED, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr' M VIVEKANANDA REDDY' Assistant Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No '1 and Mr' SANDEEP KUMAR DODLA' Advocate for the Respondent No 2 The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5636 0F 2019 ORDER: . This Criminal Petition is liled by petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.2678 of 2019, on the file of Hon'ble II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Khammam-

2. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The 2"d respondent lodged a complaint alleging that, the petitioner herein informed that he had purchased land from Pasam Hanumantha Rao, and offered to sell the same to him for consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. An amount of Rs.17 lakhs was given as advance on 06.OZ.2016. There was no formal agreement, however, the original sale deeds of the property in question, which was sought to be purchased by the complainant, were handed over to the complainant. The complainant then insisted that, since the land waS not registered in his name, the amount has to ' .! \ 2 be returned. The appellant issued two cheques for Rs.17lakhs, towards repayment of advance amount, which were returned unpaid.

4. Complaint was flled on the ground that the accused induced the complainant to purchase the plots and failed to register the land, inspite of repeated requests, and mainly on the ground that advance amount, which was given, was repaid by way of cheques, but the cheques were returned unpaid.

5. The existence of the property is not in dispute. The original deeds of the property were in fact handed over to the complainant. Admittedly, no notice was given by the complainant to the petitioner to register the land informing that the remaining amount was ready with him. No suit for specific performance was initiated by the complainant. Complainant has neither filed proof of sending the notice to the petitioner for registering the land, nor any proof was filed to show that the remaining amount of sale consideration was ready with him. 3

6. To attract al offence under Section 42O of IPC, it must be proved that the accused entertained a malafrde intent ald deliberately misrepresented facts. Pursuant to such deliberate misrepresentation, the person must have been induced and, believing it to be true, should have delivered the propert5r.

7. This Court in State of Haryana and Others vs, Bhajan Lal and Othersl, held as under: "In the exercise of the extra-ordinary pouter under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categoies of cases are giuen bg utag of illustratton uherein such potuer could be exercised either to preuent abuse of the process of ang Court or otheruise to secltre the ends of justice, though it maA not be possible to lay down ang precise, clearlg defined and sufficientlg chonnelised and infleible guide' {7 mgiad kinds of cases u.therein such power should be exercised: (a) uhere the allegations made in the First Infonnation Report or the complaint, euen if theg. are taken at their face ualue and accepted in their entirety do not pima facie cortstitute ang offence or make out a case against the ac- ansed; (b) uhere the allegations in the First Infonnation Report and other mateials, if ang, accompanging the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifging an inuestigation bg police offi.cers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within tLLe puruieu of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the uncontrouerted allegations made in the FIR or'complaint and the euidence collected in support of tLrc ' 1992 AIR 604 4 - same do not disclose the commission of ang offen<:e and make out a case against tlrc accused; (d) uhere the allegations in the FIR dn not consti.tute a cognizoble: offence but constitute onlg a non-cogtizable -offence, n.o inuestigation is permitted bg a police officer utithout an order of a Magistrote as cditemplated under Section I55(2) of the Code; (e) tuhere the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on the bctsis of uhich no prudent person can euer reach a.just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (fl uthere there is an express legal bar engrafied in ang of the prouisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a ciminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/ or where there is a specirtc prouision in the Code or the concerned Act, prouiding efficacious redress for the gieuance of the aggieued partg; (g) where a ciminal proceeding is manifestlg attended. with mala fide and/ or where the proceeding is maliciouslg instituted with an ulteior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the acansed and uith a uieut to spite him due to piuate and personal grudge."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another2, culled out the ingredients to constitute the offences under Sections 415 and 42O of IPC as under: " 15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: '415. Cheating.-WLaeuer, bg deceiuing anA person, fraudulertlg or dishonestlg induces the person so deceiued to deliuer ang propertg to any person, or to consent that ang person shall retain ang propertA, or intentionallg induces the person so deceiued to do or omit 'MeMJlsclo2t3l2ot9 I I \ 5 to do angthing tuhich he would not do or omit if he uLere not so deceiued, and which act or omission causes or is likelg to cause damage or harm to that person in bodg, mind,.reputation or propertg, is said to "cheat"." (2019) 16 SCC 739 : 2O19 INSC 216 16. The ingredients to constitute an oJfence of cheating are as follows:

16. 1 . TlLere should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person bg deceiuing him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionallg induced to deliuer anA PropertA to anA person or to consent that ang person shall retain ang propertA, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionallg induced to do or to omit to do angthing uhich he u-tould not do or omit if he utere not so deceiued; and 16.2. In cases couered bg 16.1.2. aboue, the oct or omission should be one tuhich caused or is likelg to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodg, mind, reputation or propertg.

17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person utho dislanestlg induces another person to deliuer anA properta is liable for the offence of cheating."

9. In the present case, none of the ingredients of Sections 415 or 42O of IPC are satisfied. There is no written deed- regarding agreement of sale. Admittedly, Rs.17 lakhs was paid, out of Rs.75 lakhs. No notice was sent by complainant to the accused for registering the land, and informing that the remaining amount agreed towards sale consideration was ready with hirn 6

10. The remedy for the complainant lies with the Civil Court. 1 1 . Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed., Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ITTRUE COPY// SD/. P.PAD MANABHA REDDY I IST ANT REG ISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \' { To, ammam Dist'

1. The 2ND Ad dl. Judicial First Class Magistrate at 2. The Station House Officer' KhanaPur(H) Police Station, Khammam Dist. 3. Two CCs to the Public Pro secutor, High Court at Hyderabad (OUT) 4. OneCCto Mr"MAKMU 5. One CC to lrilr SANDEEP K 6. Two CD CoPies KHEED Advocate IOPUCI UMAR DODLA' Advocate TOPUCI RC/PSL Y{ I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2810212025 ORDER CRLP.No.5636 of 2019 1HE.ST4 i\o 2t nar ry6 z t) o 1:* t) €sp AICH gO I I I ACCORDINGLY, THE CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED qrr@ Xtr