THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5494 of 2010 and CRIMINAL PETITION No.5035 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Both these petitions are ﬁled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), for quashing two different FIRs. Petitioners in one case are in substance the de facto complainants in the other and vice versa. Hence they can be disposed of by this common order. 2. The three accused namely a ﬁrm called Sri Rajadhani Vidya Asraman represented by its Managing Partner V.Srinivas, V.Srinivas and M.Krishnam Raju, who are A.1 to A.3, in Cr.No.119 of 2010 of Vikarabad Police Station, R.R. District, are petitioners in Crl.P.No.5494 of 2010. They ﬁled it for quashing the FIR in the said case. Oﬀences alleged in the said case relate to forgery, misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy to commit the same and other relevant oﬀences. The details of the oﬀences are mentioned in the FIR. The de facto complainant in it is one Akula Ramesh. 3. On the other hand, the aforementioned ﬁrm Sri Rajadhani Vidya Asraman is the de facto complainant in the other case i.e. Cr.No.60 of 2011 of Nawabpet Police Station. In the said case there are eight accused namely Akula Ramesh (A-1), T.Sadananda Reddy (A-2), G.Ramesh Goud (A-3), T.Giridhar Reddy (A-4), Malla Reddy (A-5), G.Laxman Rao (A-6), Nazir (A-7) and C.Venkat Reddy (A- 8). All of them ﬁled Crl.P.No.5035 of 2011 for quashing the FIR in the said case. T he de facto complainant Akula Ramesh in the aforesaid Cr.No.119 of 2010 is the ﬁrst accused in this Cr.No.60 of 2011. Oﬀences alleged in this case also relate to misappropriation and cheating and criminal conspiracy to commit the same. The details of the oﬀences are mentioned in the relevant FIR. 4. Both the cases were instituted as private complaints before the JFCM Court, Vikarabad, and they were referred to concerned police for investigation and report but they have been registered in two diﬀerent police stations as seen supra. No issue has been made about this difference. 5. Admittedly the ﬁrm Rajadhani Vidya Asraman earlier ﬁled suit O.S.No.143 of 2010 in the Court of the I Additional District Judge, R.R. District, against six defendants therein all of whom are accused in Cr.No.60 of 2011 of Nawabpet Police Station for recovery of a sum of Rs.59,84,000/- said to have been paid by it under an agreement of sale dated 07.03.2007 said to have been executed by the said defendants in respect of about Acs.59-27 gts consisting of two extents of land. The first extent is stated to be about Acs.21-08 gts and the second is stated to be about Acs.38-17 gts in various survey numbers in Kollimaddi and Gatevanampalli villages. The suit was brought for recovery of the advance amounts paid on the ground that the defendants have no title to the abovementioned second extent of about Acs.38-17 gts which was found to be Government land and even in respect of the ﬁrst extent of Acs.21-08 gts the defendants were not ready to complete the sale transaction despite grant of suﬃcient time. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the suit as they have to be decided by the court before which the said suit is pending. For convenience, hereinafterwards, the parties shall be referred to as Rajadhani Vidya Asraman and Akula Ramesh. 6. In the criminal complaint ﬁled by Akula Ramesh, he admitted the agreement of sale dated 07.03.2007. His version however is that Rajadhani Vidya Asraman agreed to purchase only the ﬁrst extent of Acs.21-08 gts for a total consideration of Rs.86,50,000/- and paid only a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- to himself and his associates i.e. defendants 2 to 6 in the suit. His further plea is that himself and his associates never agreed to sell the other extent of Acs.38-17 gts and never received Rs.59,84,000/- claimed in the suit. It is also alleged that Rajadhani Vidya Asraman and its partners have forged the three receipts dated 01.03.2007, 07.03.2007 and 26.03.2007 relied upon by it in order to make only a false claim. He also alleged that under the agreement of sale dated 07.03.2007 himself and his associates as already mentioned, agreed to sell only the ﬁrst extent of Ac.21-08 gts but not the second extent of Acs.38-17 gts and Rajadhani Vidya Asraman and its partners meddled with the said agreement and introduced certain recitals without their knowledge to the eﬀect that the extent of Acs.38-17 gts was also agreed to be sold and meddled with the said agreement and committed forgery of the agreement also to that extent. Thus in substance on the above allegations Akula Ramesh ﬁled the present complaint registered as Cr.No.119 of 2010 against Rajadhani Vidya Asraman and its partners. 7. It must be mentioned here that the suit was ﬁled on 08.03.2010 and it is represented that Rajadhani Vidya Asraman also obtained an order of attachment before judgment of certain property belonging to the defendants therein and that property is said to be the ﬁrst extent of Ac.21-08 gts. Thereafter, on 14.05.2010 the complaint registered as Cr.No.119 of 2010 has been ﬁled by Akula Ramesh. It is brought to my notice that Akula Ramesh and other defendants in the above suit also ﬁled written statement taking the above stand. The complaint registered as Cr.No.60 of 2011 is reported to have been ﬁled on 15.04.2011 by the Rajadhani Vidya Asraman roughly one year after it ﬁled the suit. 8. The plea of Rajadhani Vidya Asraman and its partners in Crl.P.No.5494 of 2010 is that all the allegations made in the complaint registered as Cr.No.119 of 2010 are false and that Akula Ramesh designedly and deliberately ﬁled the said complaint only to avoid their liability in the suit and to suppress the mischief committed by them in oﬀering for sale Government land of Ac.38-17 gts and to avoid sale of the remaining Ac.21-08 gts which belongs to them and only to harass it by not refunding the money received from it. It is also pleaded that the very fact that Akula Ramesh ﬁled the aforesaid private complaint just two months after the ﬁling of the suit would also demonstrate their above conduct inasmuch as they have ﬁled it only after receiving the suit notices. It is then pleaded that the dispute between them and Akula Ramesh and his associates is totally a civil dispute and is given a criminal colour and that all the documents ﬁled by it (Rajadhani Vidya Asraman) are true and in any event their genuineness has to be tested in the suit and therefore this criminal complaint is not maintainable and has to be quashed. 9. Then in the criminal case/complaint ﬁled by Rajadhani Vidya Asraman it is alleged by it that Akula Ramesh and his associates have cheated it and in fact they agreed to sell both the extents i.e. Acs.21-08 gts and Acs.38-17 gts claiming that both the extents belong to them while in its enquiry it turned out that the extent of Acs.38-17 gts is Government land and that therefore they have committed the oﬀences of cheating and misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. This case of Rajadhani Vidya Asraman pleaded in its suit is also urged in the criminal petition ﬁled by it pleading that the agreement of sale dated 17.03.2007 and all the receipts ﬁled by it in the suit are genuine and it did not commit any offence. 10. The plea of Akula Ramesh and his associates in their Crl.P.No.5035 of 2011 is that since Rajadhani Vidya Asraman has already ﬁled a suit setting up its claim it has to work out its remedies in the said suit itself and it cannot be permitted to ﬁle a private criminal complaint against them regarding the oﬀences of cheating and misappropriation. It is also pleaded that Rajadhani Vidya Asraman has ﬁled the present complaint nearly one year after it ﬁled the suit and after they ﬁled the criminal complaint registered as Cr.No.119 of 2010 and consequently this delay is also a ground for quashing the said case. Thus it should be noted that both sides are seeking the quashing of the criminal cases registered against them on the ground that the dispute between them is pending in the suit filed by Rajadhani Vidya Asraman. 11. Now coming to the question whether both the FIRs should be quashed, it should be noted that they have been registered on the private complaints ﬁled before a JFCM court which has referred them to the police for investigation and report. The allegations in each complaint would show that they do disclose the oﬀences alleged therein. Thus it cannot be said that this is a case where the allegations in each complaint do not disclose oﬀences at all. It is also well settled now that a cause of action may give rise to a suit for recovery of money or property and at the same time it may also give rise to a criminal prosecution either for an offence of cheating or forgery. 12. Sri Sarosh Bastawala the learned counsel appearing for Rajadhani Vidya Asraman relied upon Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojtrao Angre[1], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [3], G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.[4], Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala [5], Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. V. Mohd. Sharaful Haque[6], Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. [7] and Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal[8] to show that the FIR registered against his clients should be quashed while at the same time the FIR registered at the instance of his clients against Akula Ramesh and his associates need not be quashed. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Akula Ramesh and his associates in both the petitions relied upon one decision of the Supreme Court given in B.Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee [9] and contended that in view of the principle laid down in the said decision the FIR against them should be quashed inasmuch as it is belated and further Rajadhani Vidya Asraman itself earlier ﬁled suit against them and the dispute is pending in the said suit for adjudication. 14. It should be noted that in the decisions cited by both sides the parameters of the power of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash an FIR or a criminal case are laid down. The basic principle which is laid down and reiterated in all the cases is that if the FIR or the criminal case contain allegations which even if believed on the face of them do not disclose any oﬀences, only then a high court can interfere and quash the same under Section 482 of the Code. It is also laid down that a High Court while sitting under Section 482 of the Code cannot and should not embark upon an enquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations and if that is necessitated the High Court should never interfere in the matter and allow the proceedings to be taken to their logical conclusion either by the police or the concerned criminal court. This is the settled position. 15. Now as already mentioned in both the complaints allegations made do disclose the oﬀences mentioned in them. The only point urged by both sides is that since the suit is pending between the parties the complaints are not maintainable. In this connection it would be relevant to note what a full bench of the Supreme Court consisting 5 Judges has held in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah[10]. 16. In the above case the Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether simultaneous criminal proceedings can be taken out in respect of a Will deed for which an application for probate was ﬁled by the party propounding the Will and it was pending before the concerned probate court. The party opposing the Will simultaneously ﬁled a criminal complaint in the Magistrate’s court alleging oﬀences of forgery and other connected oﬀences in respect of the Will against the party propounding it. The party who propounded the Will pleaded the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code and pleaded that the complaint was not maintainable. The matter went to the Supreme Court ultimately and in the aforesaid case the Supreme Court laid down that simultaneous criminal proceedings are also maintainable notwithstanding the pendency of the civil proceedings. 17. In the present case it may be noted that in the complaint ﬁled by Akula Ramesh it has been speciﬁcally alleged that a part of the agreement of sale in question has been tampered with so as to show that he and his associates agreed to sell the other extent of Acs.38-17 gts and the three receipts relied upon by the Rajadhani Vidya Asraman are also forged and allegations have been made to that eﬀect. Similarly in the complaint ﬁled by Rajadhani Vidya Asraman it is alleged that Akula Ramesh and his associates have cheated it claiming that the extent of Acs.38-17 gts belongs to them though it is Government land and agreed to sell it also and took advance money for that extent also though it does not belong to them. The only defect is that the complaint of Rajadhani Vidya Asraman has been ﬁled belatedly i.e. one year after it ﬁled the suit, but it should be noted that there is no limitation for the oﬀence of cheating falling under Section 420 IPC though the delay may ultimately become a factor in deciding the truthfulness of the allegation. 18. To repeat what should be noted is that in both the complaints allegations are made which disclose the oﬀences alleged in them by each party against the other. It is true that suit brought by Rajadhani Vidya Asraman is pending and the very same contentions may have to be again gone into in the suit. However in view of the above Supreme Court decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah’s case (10 supra) it follows that both the complaints are also maintainable. As both the complaints do contain the allegations regarding the oﬀences mentioned in them it follows that this court cannot interfere under Section 482 of the Code in respect of both the cases. 19. In B.Suresh Yadav’s case (9 supra) relied upon by the counsel for Akula Ramesh and his associates, the facts therein would disclose that there was a civil dispute and suit was pending and the party who initiated criminal proceedings took contrary stands in the suit and in the criminal complaint. It was in such a situation the criminal complaint was quashed. In the present case both Rajadhani Vidya Asraman and its partners on one side and Akula Ramesh and his associates on the other took similar stands in the suit and as well as in their criminal complaints. In view of this fact situation here the above decision in B.Suresh Yadav’s case (9 supra) is distinguishable and cannot help Akula Ramesh and his associates. 20. In the above circumstances it follows that along with the suit both parties can also work out their remedies in their respective criminal complaints and there is no scope for this court to interfere under Section 482 of the Code. 22. Accordingly both the criminal petitions are dismissed. It shall be open for both sides to put forth their respective cases before the investigating oﬃcers and ultimately if the matters go to the court, it goes without saying that each party can also apply for discharge and work out their remedies in the said criminal proceedings. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 9th December 2011 CVRK [1] (1988) 1 SCC 692 [2] AIR 1992 SC 604 [3] (1992) 4 SCC 305 [4] (2000) 2 SCC 636 [5] (2000) 8 SCC 590 [6] (2005) 1 SCC 122 [7] (2006) 6 SCC 736 [8] AIR 2008 SC 251 [9] (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 282 [10] 2006 (1) ALT (Crl) 9 (S.C.)