G.B.C. Raj Gopal v. The Government of A'P' and othersr

Order

This Criminal Petition has been hled under Section 482 of the Code of Crirnina,l Procedure, 197 3, by the petitioner/ accused seeking to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.2367 of 2022 on the hle of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jangaon, for the offences pr-rnishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short,'the IPC'). Brief facts of the case: 2. Respondent No.2/de facto cornplainant lodged the complaint on 22.06.2022 stating that she and Puskuri Praveen together purchased the land in Sy'No.BS f B; to an extent of Ac.1.2O gts., from Routhu Prabhakar Rao, i'e, petitioner krerein, and pattadar pass book was also issued in their favour. Br-rt, few days back, the petitioner crirninally trespassed into their land and darnaged the cabin and basernent. On coming to know the same through their relatives, they went to their land and found cabin and basement were totally darnaged and camsed loss to a tune of I 2 Rs.SO,OOO/-. As their lives were in danger if they went to their land, requested to take necessary action. Basing upon the sarne, Crirne No.125 of 2022 was registered. The Investigating Offrcer after conducting investigation frled the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the IPC and the sarne rvas taken cognizance by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

3. Heard Ms. Pingali Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri L. Prasad Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4- Subtnissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1 . Learned counsel subrnitted that the petitioner has not comrnitted any offence and he tras been falsely implicated in the present crirne. The petitioner is the owner of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.27 gts. in Sy.No.a5/B of Chinnapendyal Village and the sarne was acquired through a registered sa-le deed uide docurnent No.622 of 1994, dated

21.11.1994, and his narne was mutated in the reventle records. Respondent No.2 played framd upon the petitioner and claimed rights over the property basing upon a :1 registered agreerrrent of sale-curn-GPA dated 23.O3-2OLa, thor.rgh the same is not binding upon the petitioner.

4.2. She further submitted that the petitioner frled a sr.rit in O.S.No.131 of 2018 belore the I Additional District Jr,rdge, Warangal, against respondent No.2 and others seeking a declaration to declare the registered agreernent of sale-cr-rm- GPA, uide docurnent No.983 of 20IB, dated 23.03.2018, as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and to declare the pahani patrika for the year 2Ol7 of suit schedule property as void and a-lso sought permanent injr.rnction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2 frorn alienating the sr.rit schedule property or otherwise creating third part interest in any lnanner and the said Cor.rrt granted an ad interirn injt. nction on 30.O8.2018 in I.A.No.58O of 2018 and thereafter, the said suit was transferred to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Jangaon and re-nurnbered as O.S.No.6O of 2022.

4.3. She also subrnitted that wtren an ad interirn injunction order, dated 3O.O8.2O18, is in force, respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha executed the registered sale deed in favour of T. Ravinder Rao and P. Praveen on O7.O9.2O18. At this stage, the petitioner frled arrother suit in O.S.No.24 of 2019 I 4 before the I Additiona,l District Judge, Waralgal, seeking a deciaration that the sale deed dated O7.O9.2O 1g as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and perpetual injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 4 frorn interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property.

4.4. Learned counsel further subrnitted that when both the suits are pending, respondent No.2 lodged a cornplaint on 22.06.2022 and the Investigating Offrcer without properly conducting investigation filed charge sheet and ttre same was taken cognizance by the trial Court, though entire allegations levelled in the cornplaint are pr-rrely civil in natrlre and the ingredients under Sections 442, 422 and 506 of the IPC are not attractcd against ttre petitioner.

4.5. She further subrnitted that the allegation rnade in the complaint that the petitioner unlawfully entered into the subject property and demolished the basernent and cabin, thereby respondent No.2 sr.stained a f'nancial loss of Rs.SO,OOO/- is not trre and correct. Even if respondent No.2 sustained any financial loss, she ought to have hled a civil suit claiming damages rather than lodging a criminal complaint. ) 5

4.6. Learrred cor.rnsel a,lso subrnitted ttrat respondent No'2 along with P. Nagashireestra executed the registered sale deed dated O7.Og.2Ola in favour of T' Ravinder Rao and P. Praveen. By virtue of the sarne, respondent No'2 is not having any right over the property to lodge the complaint' Hence, the entire proceedings initiated against ttre petitioner are clear abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed.

4.7 In slrpport her contention, stre relied upon the following jr-.rdgrnents: 1 2 G.B.C. Raj Gopal v. The Government of A'P' and othersr; and Chilakarnarthi Venkateswarlu and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another2'

5. Subrnissions of learned counsel for resDondent No.2: 5.1 . Per coratra, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner trirnself had executed agreernent of sale-cum- General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 23'O3'2ola in favor'rr of respondent No-2 and P. Nagashireesha and received the entire sale consideration of Rs'22,5o,ooo/ - throrrgh cheqrres | 2ot4 (z) ALD (crl.) 810 'z zotg (2\ ALD (crl.) lo2o (sc) ,/ / 6 and delivered the physical possession of the schedule property and ttreir narnes were rnr-rtated in the revenue records and they have been in possession and enjoyrnent of the sr-rbject property since then. Subsequently, respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha executed a registered salc deed uzde document No.35O2 of 2Ol8 dated O7.O9.2ola. It is further subrnitted that the petitioner illegally trespassed into the subject property and darnaged the cabin and basement and caused hr-rge financial loss to respondent No.2, thor-rgh he is not having any semblance of right in respect of tLre subject property.

5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that mere pendency of the civil suits does not bar to initiate crirninaf proceedings, especially when the petitioner trespassed into the property ald darnaged the cabin and basernent and caused huge hnancial loss and also there is a threat to respondent No.2 and her husband.

5.3. He a-lso submitted that respondent No.2 is none other thal tl. e wife of the purchaser, narnely T. Ravinder Rao, who purchased ttr.e property through the registered sale deed dated O7.O9.2O 18 and bottr are residing ung!_gr one roof. \ ,' ) 7 Hence, the contention raised by learned corlnsel for the petitioner that by virtue of execution of the registered sale deed by respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha, respondent No.2 does not have any right to lodge the cornplaint is not tenable under law.

5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgrnent of the Hon'ble Suprerne Court in Sarr. I(arnala Shiwaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra 66 Ors.3. Analysis:

6. Having considered the rival subrnissions rnade by the respective parties and r:pon perusal of the material available on record, it revea-ls that the petitioner is claiming rights over the subject property based on a registered sale deed bearing No.622 of 1994 dated 21.11.1994, whereas respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha are clairning rights over the subject property based upon a registered agreernent of sale-cr.rrn- GPA, dated 23.O3.2O18, uide docurnent No.983 of 2018, said to have been executed by the petitioner. Frorn perusal of the docrrrnent dated 23.03 .2O1^B, it reveals that respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha purchased the property frorn the 3 (2019) 14 scc 350 8 petitioner by paying sale consideration of Rs.22,5O,OOO/- through forrr (4) cheques bearing Nos. 076666, 076669 and O2O398 drawn on A;ris Bank and cheque bearing No.629188 drawn on ICICI Bank. The said docurrlent frrrther reveals ttrat the possession of the schedule property was delivered in favour of the purchasers. The specifrc clairn of respondent No.2 is that their nartrnes were rnrltated in the revenr.re records and pattadar passbook was also isslred. 7 . The record further reveals that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.131 of 2018 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangal, against respondent No.2, P. Nagashireesha and the Tahasildar, Chilpur Mandai, Jalgaon, seeking a declaration that the agreernent of sale-cum-GPA dated

23.O3.2OIa as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and also sought rectifrcation of entries in the revenrle records and also perrnanent injunction. Along with the said suit, the petitioner frled I.A.No.SSO of 2018 under Order XXXIX rules I and 2 of the C.P.C. and the said Cor-rrt granted status quo on 30.08.2018 over the petition schedule property till

06.09.2018. Sr.rbsequently, the said suit was transferred to the Court of Principal District Judge, Warangal, and re- / 9 nurnbered a.s O.S.No.6O of 2022- B. The record further revea-Is that the petitioner filed another suit in O.S.No.24 of 2Ol9 before the I Additional District Judge, Warangai, against respondent No-2 and f,rve others seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed dated O7.O9.2O18 as void, illegal and liable to be cancelled and also sought a perrnanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and alienating the sr.rit schedr.rle property and the said suit was re-nu,mbered as O.S.No.59 of 2Or2. Even according to the parties, the above said two (2) sr.rits are pending adjudication.

9. On perr-rsal of the record, it revea,Is that there are specifrc allegations against the petitioner in the cornplaint as well as charge sheet that the petitioner entered into the subject property unamthorisedly, darnaged the cabin and basernent, ald camsed a hnanciaL loss to a tune of Rs.BO,OOO/- and also alleged that there is a serious threat frorn the petitioner. The witnesses in their staternents also stated the role of ttre petitioner that he illegally entered into the subject property and darnaged the cabin and basement. 1O. Whether the agreerrrent of sa-le executed by the 10 {-r petitioner dated 23.03.2018 in favour of respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha is valid or not has to be decided in O.S.No.6O of 2022. Sirnilarly, whether the sale deed dated 07 .Og .2O 18 execr.rted by P.Nagashireesha in favour of defendant Nos.l and 2 in respondent No. 2 O.S.No.S9 of 2082 is va,lid and binding on the petitioner tras to be decided in the said suit only.

11. It is pertinent to rnention that the Investigating Ofhcer after recording the staternents of the witnesses hled charge sheet, wherein specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner that he unatuthorisedly entered into the schedule property ald darnaged the cabin and basernent ald caused frnancial loss and also there is a threat to respondent No.2 and her husband in tris hands. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has not cornmitted any offence. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that whether ttre petitioner has cornrnitted the offence as alleged by the prosecution or not will be revealed during the course of the trial only.

12. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have frled suit for .t 11 recovery of arnount for the alleged damaged property worth of Rs.SO,OOO /-, on the other hand, frled complaint invoking penal provisions, especially two civil suits are pending in respect of very sarne property and the proceedings in C.C.No.2367 of 2022 against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law are concerned, it is already stated supra tlnat there arc specific allegations i,evelled against the petitioner that he entered into the subject property and darnaged cabin and basement and canrsed huge f,rnancial loss and a serious threat to her and trer husband in his trands. It is trite law that rnere pcndency of civit cases between the parties does not bar to invoke crirninal jr-rrisdiction, provided the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable off'ence. 13- It is relevant to mention that in I(. Jagadish w. Udaya I(urnar G.S.a, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reafhrrned the well- settled principle that the sarne set of facts may give rise to both civil and crirninal proceedings, and that availing a civil remedy does not bar ttre initiation of criminal prosecution. The Court relied heavily on precedents lTke Kamoladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and lrrsurrs Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, to reiterate ttrat criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely becamse a civil ' 1zo2oy r+ scc ssz l2 f dispute is also pending between the parties. In Kamaladevi Agarwal, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify qrrashing criminal proceedings, especially where the allegations disclose a prima facie crirninal offence- The Court observed that rnany acts of cheating occur in the context of cornrnercial or frnancial transactions, and such a 'civil profiIe' does not strip tl.e act of its "criminal outfit." The Court also referred to Stote ofHaryana v. Bhaian Lal arrd Rajesh Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi), wbich held that quashing of FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be limited to rare and exceptional cases. It ernphasized that just becamse a transaction involves a cornmercial or rnonetary element that alone is not a ground to rule or-rt crirninal intent or proceedings. Ultirnately, the Court concluded that the High Court had erred in quashing the crirninal proceedings, stressing that criminal cases rntlst proceed as per the Cr.P.C. and cannot be halted so1ely due to parallel civil litigation, regardless of the status or amthority of the civil forum.

14. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 does not have the right to lodge the complaint dated 22.06.2022 against the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.2 and P. Nagashireesha had already sold the property to others and that she is not an aggrieved party is concerned, \ ,t-, 13 respondent No.2 is none other ttran the wife of T. Ravinder Rao, who purchased the property along with P. Praveen thror.rgh a registered sale deed, dated O7.O9 .2ola, and both are residing under one roof. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 has no right to lodge a complaint and that only the aggrieved party can lodge a cornplaint is not tenable under law.

15. In G.B.C. Raj Gopal supra, the case of the petitioner therein is that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are police ofhcials, calling and pressuring the petitioner to subscribe his signature to the already prepared docurnents without disclosing the contentions thereof and threatening to implicate hirn in crirninal cases if he failed to do so and the sarne is not perrnitted under law and said judgrnent is not applicable to the facts and circurnstances of the case.

16. In Chilakarnarthi Venkateswarlu supra, the appellant therein approached the erstwhile combined High Cor-rrt for the State of Telangana and AndLrra Pradesh at Hyderabad, seeking to qr-rash P.R.C.No.2 of 2O18 pending on the frle of the Additional Judicial F irst Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District, for the offences punishable under t4 Sections 3O7, 323, 427, 447 and 506(2) read w-ith 34 of the IPC and the sarne was dismissed on 3O.O8.2OlA. Aggrieved by the sarne, tLre appellant filed S.L.P. and the Hon'ble Apex Court disrnissed the appeal holding that' High Court rightly refuse to quash the criminal complaint and the said judgment is a,lso not supporting the case of ttre petitioner, on the other hand supportS the case of respondent No'2'

77. In Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court held. that the inkrerent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. kras to be exercised in exceptional cases sparingly, w-ith car.rtion, only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice; and it cannot be invoked to weigh evidence or stifle a genuine prosecution, but rnay be applied where the allegations in ttre cornplaint, taken at face value, d.o not disclose the basic ingredients of any offence ' The case on hand is not the rarest of rare cases to exercise powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C' to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2376 of 2022 -

18. For tLre foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any grotrnd to quash the proceedings in C.C'No'2376 of 2022 against the petitioner pending on the frle of the Additional 15 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon.

19. Accordingly, the crirninal petition is dismissed. However, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner, his presence in C.C.No.2376 of 2022 is dispensed with, unless his presence is specifically required during ttre course of trial, subj ect to the condition that the petitioner shall represent through his cot. nsel on each and every date of hearing. In case of non-appearance of the petitioner on the specific date so fixed by the trial Court for his appearance, the trial Court is entitled to proceed w-ith the rnatter, in accordance with lanrr. It is needless to observe that any of the observations rnade in ttris order are only for the purpose of deciding this case and the trial Colrrt shall decide the matter basing upon the evidence, which is going to be addr-rced by either of the parties, in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, sha1l stand closed. SD/- A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGISTRAR A iI //TRUE COPY// ,",i SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice J Sreenivas Rao (For His Lordships kind Perusal) To,

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon 2. The Station House Officer, Chilpur Police Station, Warangal 3. 1ILRCopies 4. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

5. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of ^ Telangana. High Court Buildings at HyOerabad 6. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High iourt for the State of Telangana at 1 9nu CC to Sri pingati Lakshmi, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri L. prasad Rao; Advocate tbpUCi 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] '- ' M, ABK/nvb i I ']{ HIGH COURT DATED: 2610912025 I I ORDER CRLP.No.12161 of 2023 lriE 5T4 r-\\t C 2025 \ -2 -(-) DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION 1 j 1 $