The High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSection4S2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the fi/lemorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may fe pteaseO to stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petiiioner/Accused No. 4, in c.c. No. 5047 of 2O22, on the file of Hon'ble lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad t.A. NO:2OF 2024 PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighGourtmay [" pf..."O to extend the interim order granted in Crl.P.No.10658 oI 2O22 granted on 01-12-2022 and extended on og-01-2o24, may be extended until further ord e rs. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorand-um of Grounds of Criminal Peiition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K' Venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the smt. s. tt/ladhavi, Assistani Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri N, Naveen Kumar, Advocate for the ResPondent No.2. The Gourt made the following: ORDER THE HONC,URABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.10658 OF 2022 ORDER This Cnminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No 5047 of 2022 pending on the file of learned lll Additional Chief I\Ietropolitan lVlagistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 420 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC')

02. lleard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No 2 as well as Smt S.lVladhavi, learned Assisrant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record

03. Brief facts of the case are that there vras an understandingt between the accused No.3 and the complainant in respect of sale of Flat No.F2, First Floor, B-5, Road No.2, F'hase-|, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad ln pursuant tc the said understanding, the complainant paid I 2 an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused No.3 towards advance sale consideration. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs.50,00,0001 Thereafter, the possession of the above said property was delivered in favour of the complainant in the month of fillarch, 2007. The accused No.3 without coming forward for execution of sale deed, demanded an amount of Rs.20,00,0001, for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-. But the accused No.3 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, for which, the complainant filed a complaint and the same was investigated and charge sheet was filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.2935 of 2018. The accused No.3 colluded with his relatives i.e. the accused Nos.1 and 2, executed a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2019 in respect of the above property in favour of the petitioner-accused No.4. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint to take necessary action against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offence' There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of 3 the petitioner-accused No.4. There is no element of cheating against the petitioner-accused No.4. The petitioner- accused No 4 has purchased the above said property by way of Registered Sale deed dated 12.12.2O19. The complainant filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the accused Nos.1 to 3 including the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking specific performance of oral Agreenrent of Sale dated 15 03.2007. All the allegations levelled aga nst the petitioner-accused No.4 are purely civil in nature and the respondent No.2-complainant is trying to convert the c:ivil dispute into a criminal dispute. The contents of the comp,laint do not disclose the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence under Section 420 ol IPC 05 \/Vith the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of lndia in Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengat and anothey', wherein it was held at paragraph No.1 1 that: "11. ln the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civit suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the responclent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appettants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending tiile suit in the year 201 S, he got no case that he obtained an interim retief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as a/so the trusteeship, that he fited the stated application for an order for investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion. For att these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power I 2023 LiveLaw(SC) 67 5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all fufther proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitling continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid circumstances would result in abuse of the process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice."

06. Further, he relied upon a decision in A.M.Mohan v. State2 it was by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.1 1 to '1 3 that: "11. This Courl, in the case of prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharant and Another has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 41 S and 420 of lPC, as under: "15. Section 41 5 of the Penal Code reads thus: "415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonesily induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall 2 2024 Lawsuit(Sc) 249 I 6 - retain any properly, or intentionaily induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or propefty, r.s sarrJ lo "cheat"." 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows; 16.1. There shoutd be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1 .1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any properly to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced shoutd be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. ln cases coyele d by 16.1 .2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonesily induces another person to I I I 7 deliver any propefty is liable for the offence of cheating.

18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: "420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any propefty to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any parl of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: 19 1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 41 5; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonesily induced to (a) deliver properly to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 20 Cheating r's an essentr,al ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 "

12. A similar view has been taken by this Coutl in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4, Deepak Gaba and Others v. Stafe of uttar Pradesh and AnotherT and Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and Anotherl.

13. lt could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of lPC, the F\R/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. ln other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of lPC, it must be shown that the FlR/complaint dlsc/oses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement-"

07. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as learned I counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 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 petitioner at this juncture and the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition

08. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the record, it is apparent on the face of the r-ecord that the complainant filed a civil suit vide O.S No 123 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the accused Nos.'1 to 3 including the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking spr:cific performance of oral Agreement of Sale dated 15.03 2007. The genuineness and veracity of alleged oral Agreernent of Sale was pending for adjudication. Further, it is; the case of the petitioner-accused No.4 is that she purchased the above said property under a registered sale deed ditled 12.12,2019 as a bonafide purchaser

09. lt is settled principle of law that the dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the accused, to cheat the 10 complainant, shall be from inception In the case on hand, the entire material placed on record discloses that all the allegations are levelled against the accused No.3. lt is also evident that the complainant filed a complaint aggrieved by the acts of the accused No.3 and the same was investigated by the Police and a charge sheet was filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.2935 of 2018 and the same is pending for adjudication before the concerned lVlagistrate.

10. On a careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record, there is no direct nexus between the complainant and the petitioner-accused No.4. The criminal case filed by the complainant against the accused No.3 is of the year 20'1 B lt is evident from the present complaint itself that the petitioner-accused No 4 came to know about the alleged litigation between the complainant and accused No.3 only after the purchase of the above said property. Therefore, primafaice, it appears that the petitioner-accused No.4 is a bonafide purchaser of the said property and there is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No.4 to cheat the complainant to attract 11 the criminal prosecution. However, the civil rights of the parties are yet to be adjudicated by the learned competent Civil Court in the above civil suit. Therefore, the allegation that there is dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No.4 to cheat the complainant, right from the beginning of the transaction, has no water and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law as the required essential ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 420 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner_accused No.4.

11. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including the setfled principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia in the above decisions, this Court is of the firm opinion that the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No.4 do not attract the offence under Section 420 of lpC Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. I j 12

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.4 in C.C.No.5047 of 2022 pending on the file of learned lll Additional Chief Metropolitan lVlagistrate at Hyderabad, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR P E TION OFFICER To, 6- Kar gh

1. The lll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Lakdikapul Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate IOPUC] 5. One CC to Sri N. Naveen Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 6. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ci\ '{ Yi (: S i,q r4: (< Lax (- ) :) rJ 1/ 17JUN M 2 o .\ :D^.. o., rC Hr-o ORDER CRLP.No.10658 of 2022 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION Wyr{,r .,-W'"