HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NOs.2017 & 2050 of 2010 Date:13.04.2010 CRL.PETITION NO.2017 of 2010 Between: S.V. Siva Reddy …..Petitioner And: Gattu Venkat Mallikarjuna Gupta and another …..Respondents. CRL.PETITION NO.2050 of 2010 Between: Kotipi/Jaya Rama Reddy Rama Krishna Reddy …..Petitioner And: Gattu Venkat Mallikarjuna Gupta and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU CRL.PETITION NOs.2017 & 2050 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two petitions are filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 (A-1and A-2) separately for quashing FIR in Crime No.30 of 2010 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 506 (Part-II) and 34 IPC. A-1 is General Secretary of All India ING Vysya Bank Employees Union and he is working as clerk in ING Vysya Bank at Bangalore. A-2 is Managing Partner of ESVEE Constructions, Bangalore doing real estate business. The defacto-complainant/1st respondent is working as clerk in ING Vysya Bank Limited, Tadepalligudem. There is no dispute that ESVEE Constructions, Bangalore promoted scheme for providing house sites to ING Vysya Bank employees on the request of Bank employees union and that the 1st respondent joined as Member in the scheme and paid various amounts to ESVEE Constructions, Bangalore by way of bank demand drafts and all the said payments were acknowledged by ESVEE Constructions by passing receipts. There is no dispute with regard to payments of amounts made by the 1st respondent and receipts passed by ESVEE Constructions, Bangalore therefor. Alleging that A-1 and A-2 colluded and collected huge amounts running into crores of rupees from ING Bank employees including the 1st respondent with a view to cheat them, the 1st respondent gave report to the police. It is stated that the police arrested A-1 and produced him before the Magistrate at Tadepalligudem and also obtained police custody of A-1 and that at that stage this Court granted bail to A-1 and that therefore, the police had to release A-1 from police custody without completing his interrogation and investigation. It is contended for A-1 that even as per allegations in report by the 1st respondent to the police, the 1st respondent made all the payments to ESVEE Constructions, Bangalore and that the 1st respondent did not pay even single rupee to the 1st respondent and in the absence of A-1 obtaining any amount from the 1st respondent, the question of A-1 committing offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC would never arise. It is further stated that in the circular letter given by the Union to all ING Vysya Bank employees, A-1 had made it clear that the Union is only a facilitator and that all payments have to be made by the bank employees to ESVEE Constructions by way of demand drafts only. The 1st respondent himself along with his Vacate Stay petition filed copy of letter dated 14.4.2006 of A-1 as General Secretary of the Union addressed to all employees of the Bank wherein it was made clear; “ our role is a facilitator only”. Even as per the 1st respondent’s case, he made all the payments by way of demand drafts to ESVEE Constructions directly and not either to A-1 or to the Union. It is contended for A-2 that even as per allegations in report given by the 1st respondent to the police, the 1st respondent did not know who Sivareddy (A-2) was. It is alleged in that report that even though the 1st respondent did not know who Sivareddy was, the 1st respondent made payments believing representations of A-1 who is General Secretary of the Union. It is contended that when the 1st respondent did not know who A-2 was, the question of making any representation by A-2 and cheating the 1st respondent does not arise at all. It is contended for A-2 that nearly 1800 employees of the bank joined as members for purchase of house plots and that in phased manner ESVEE Constructions allotted house plots at Bangalore by drawing lots picked up by one of the employees of the same bank. A-2 filed two letters dated 28.09.2009 addressed to the 1st respondent informing him that plot Nos.277 and 384 measuring 1200 S.Ft., each approved by BMRDA (Anekal Development Authority) were allotted to the 1st respondent and calling upon the 1st respondent to pay balance of sale consideration and obtain registered sale deeds for those plots in his name. It is contended for A-2 without 1st respondent coming forward for obtaining registration of those plots in his name by paying balance of sale consideration, the 1st respondent has chosen to give report to the police because of Union disputes between the 1st respondent and A-1. On the other hand, it is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that none of the above two letters was received by the 1st respondent. Sri T. Pradmnya Kumar Reddy, Advocate appearing for A-2 herein stated during the course of arguments that A-2 is even now prepared to execute registered sale deeds for the above two plots in favour of the 1st respondent after receiving balance of sale consideration payable by the 1st respondent therefor and that in the alternative the 2nd respondent representing ESVEE Constructions, Bangalore is ready to return or refund all the payments made by the 1st respondent by way of demand drafts for which receipts were issued, to the 1st respondent immediately together with bank rate of interest if the 1st respondent is not interested to obtain registered sale deeds for those plots. The 1st respondent’s counsel Sri S. Ashok Anand Kumar states that having regard to this offer made by A-2, he has to convey the same to the 1st respondent and that he has no immediate instructions to react on this offer of A-2’s counsel. It is contended for A-2 that prior to giving report to the police, the 1st respondent did not give any notice to A-2 or ESVEE Constructions either calling upon them to refund amounts paid by him or for registration of the plots in his favour and that if such a notice was issued by the 1st respondent, then A-2 would have come up with the above proposal in writing to the 1st respondent. Having regard to above admitted facts and having regard to stand taken by A-2 in this Court, it is prima facie evident that A-1 received no part of the payments from the 1st respondent and that A-2 who received the payments is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that in case the 1st respondent is not willing to proceed with the contract, A-2 is ready and willing to refund money received by ESVEE Constructions together with bank rate of interest. Thus, even if facts stated by the 1st respondent in his report given to the police are accepted to be true, those facts do not prima facie make out any offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC against any of the A-1 or A-2. There is no allegation in the FIR of forging any document involving valuable security and so, Section 467 IPC has no application at all herein. Further, in so far as offence punishable under Section 506 (Part-II) IPC is concerned, it is alleged that when the 1st respondent contacted A-1, he was threatening him when the 1st respondent was pressing A-1 for registration of the plot. A-1 is a resident of Bangalore, whereas the 1st respondent is resident of Tadepalligudem. It is not stated as to by what means and mode the 1st respondent demanded A-1 and A-1 is stated to have intimidated the 1st respondent, and at what place and on what dates. Main grievance of the 1st respondent is about registration of house plots in his name and with regard to amounts paid by him to ESVEE Constructions towards sale consideration for those plots. When clarification is obtained from A-2 on those aspects, in my opinion, nothing survives in this crime. At any rate, dispute between the 1st respondent and ESVEE Constructions is purely a civil dispute regarding purchase of plots, sale consideration therefor and registration of plots in the name of the 1st respondent. It will not clothe the 1st respondent with a right to proceed under criminal law against A-1 or A-2. It is contended by the 1st respondent’s counsel that partnership deed in respect of formation of ESVEE Constructions was entered into subsequent to floating of the scheme and amounts were collected from the 1st respondent even without ESVEE Constructions obtaining registration of the land made into plots in the name of ESVEE Constructions or A-2. The developer need not obtain registered sale deed or registered power of attorney deed for the land in his favour and the developer can make original owner to register the plot in the name of subscriber in the scheme directly. In my opinion, the 1st respondent has no locus standi to build up a case out of the above documents. This Court is of the view that there are no merits in FIR lodged by the 1st respondent with Tadepallegudem Police Station and that therefore, the said FIR is liable to be quashed. In the result, both the petitions are allowed quashing FIR in Crime No.30 of 2010 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDA RAJULU,J. Date:13.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.PETITION NOs.2017 & 2050 of 2010 Date:13.04.2010 Gk.