HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5128 OF 2010 . DATED 2nd December, 2011. BETWEEN k.Mahender Reddy …Petitioner And K.Renuka Devi and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5128 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 161 of 2010 on the file of the Station House Officer, Police Station, RGI Airport, Shamshabad, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District. The first respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. complaining that the accused sold her plots in question suppressing the fact of issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 352, MA & UD (1) Department, dated 30.07.2001, whereby the HADA contemplated laying of outer ring road through the plots purchased by the complainant from the accused. In the said complaint, it was stated that the accused made her to believe that they have obtained the approval of the lay out from the Sarpanch of Gaganpahad, but in fact, the Sarpanch is not the competent authority to approve the lay out and the Panchayat Secretary or the Executive Officer, as the case may be, is the competent to act on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. It is her further complaint that the proceedings for the purpose of laying the Master Plan Internal Developmental Roads were initiated much before the plots in question were offered and sold to her and that the accused are well within the knowledge of the fact that the plots sold to her are subjected to the laying of said roads. She also complained that the accused having suppressed the above facts grossly violated the fourth covenant contained in the sale deeds. As such, the accused had dishonestly induced her by way of transfer of the property by suppressing the facts and deceived her, which amounts to ‘cheating’ punishable under Section 420 IPC. Heard. Perused the case file. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in taking cognizance of the complaint made by the first respondent in as much as the dispute complained of therein is purely civil in nature. He submitted that after selling the plots by the petitioner’s partnership firm, if any road is proposed to be laid subsequently, the petitioner cannot be made responsible for the same. He asserted that the complainant having applied for regularization of the unauthorized plots under LRS, cannot maintain the private complaint against the petitioner. He contended that if the first respondent is of the opinion that if there is violtion of the forth covenant in the sale deeds, it is open to her to avail civil remedies in accordance with law, but she cannot launch criminal proceedings against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-complainant submitted that the facts of the complaint prima facie disclose the offence of ‘cheating’ punishable under Section 420 IPC. He therefore asserted that there are absolutely no grounds to quash the crime registered against the petitioner and other accused as the criminal complaint can be maintained apart from availing the civil remedies. While dealing with a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a complaint or an FIR, as the case may be, this Court is only to read the contents of the complaint or the FIR including the documents annexed therewith as a whole and if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, without examining the merits of the same, prima facie constitute an offence or make out the case as alleged against the accused, then interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not warranted. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been succinctly laid down duly considering the law on the point by the Supreme Court in RAVINDRA KUMAR MADHANLAL GOENKA v. RUGMINI RAM RAGHAV SPINNERS (P) LTD.[(2009) 11 SCC 529]. Therein, it was held in para 16 thus: “16. This Court in Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [(2006) 6 scc 736] at pp. 747-48 has observed as under: (SCC para 12) “12. ……… The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.” [Emphasis is added] A perusal of the complaint showS that accused have obtained the approval of the lay out from the concerned Sarpanch and basing on the same, they sold the plots in question to the complainant. However, the fact remains that the Sarpanch is not the competent authority to approve the lay out and Panchayat Secretary or Executive Officer, as the case may be, is the competent authority to act on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. Further the complainant purchased the plots in question from the accused in the year 2003. Much before her purchase, the Government have issued G.O.Ms. No. 352, dated 30.07.2001 declaring the area comprised in the jurisdiction of Shamshabad and surrounding villages in Ranga Reddy District to be the special development area and thereby the plots purchased by the complainant from the accused were totally affected by the Master Plan. However, this fact appears to have not been brought to the notice of the complainant by the accused at the time of sale of the plots in question. In VIR PRAKASH SHARMA v. ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL [(2007) 7 SCC 373], the Supreme Court inter alia while considering Section 420 IPC laid down the ingredients thereof as under: “13. The ingredients of Section 420 of the Penal Code are as follows: (i) Deception of any persons; (ii) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or (iii) To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit.” In the case on hand, there is inter alia specific allegation in the complaint to the effect that A1 to A7 dishonestly induced the complainant by way of transferring the property by suppressing the facts and thereby deceived and cheated her in parting with sale consideration for purchase of the plots in question. On a careful reading of the complaint, it cannot be said that the complaint including the documents annexed therewith does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offence punishable Section 420 IPC cannot be said to be totally absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. This Court, however, hasten to add a caveat that whether or not the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case, once the police files a final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as at present the case is at the stage of investigation on being referred to the police by the learned Magistrate, but simply because of the fact that there is a civil remedy provided for, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy available to the complainant. Both criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued in diverse situations. As a matter of fact they are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoers. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not see any ground to exercise the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the crime registered against the petitioner. The Criminal Petition is therefore dismissed. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 2nd December, 2011. Msnro