HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3398 of 2008 Date:07.04.2011 Between: S. Dasarath ….Petitioner. And: The State of A.P., rep. PP and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3398 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.344 of 2008 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. The petitioner No.2 herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 420, 406 IPC alleging that the accused represented to him that he is the absolute owner of the plot No.460 to an extent of 246 sq. yards situated at Road No.10-A, Gemini Colony, Zamisthanpur, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the accused executed an agreement of sale dated 11.02.2008 in favour of the complainant in respect of the above said property at his house bearing No.2-4-660, New Nagole Colony, Ranga Reddy District. On the date of agreement, the complainant paid and the accused received an amount of Rs.1.00,000/- as an advance. The complainant visited the house of the accused and requested him to execute the registered sale deed, but he postponed the same. The complainant issued a legal notice on 10.3.2008 to the accused calling him to come forward along with all the relevant documents for executing registered sale deed by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.34,00,000/-. The accused also gave notice with all false allegations that the complainant failed to pay the balance sale consideration and that he is canceling the agreement of sale. Then the complainant learnt that the accused already sold away the house property to other prior to executing the agreement of sale in his favour and he came to know that that the accused willingly induced the complainant and collected money from him only with an intention to cheat the complainant. The said complaint was referred to the Station House Officer, L.B. Nagar Police Station and they registered a case in Crime No.269 of 2008 and after investigation, they filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner who is the accused therein for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute any offence and prima facie no case is made out against him. According to him, one A. Yadav Reddy has approached the petitioner somewhere in the month of March and April, 2008 expressing his desire to purchase the property and the same was agreed to purchase for the total sale consideration of Rs.30.00 lakhs but the said Yadav Reddy did not turn up to purchase the said property and as such an understanding between the petitioner and the Yadav Reddy became futile. On 20.2.2008, while the petitioner was returning from Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad, to board a bus to reach Nagole, some unknown persons have forcibly abducted him in an auto under the threat to his life and have taken him to Osmania University Campus, detained him till 11.00 p.m and have forcibly taken his signatures on blank and non-judicial stamp papers in the presence of said Yadav Reddy. After coming out of the threat, the petitioner has given a complaint to the Police, Gopalapuram for the offences under Sections 341, 365, 384, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. This fact was reported to the Sub-Registrar, Chikkadpally, Commissioner of Police by the petitioner. The 2nd respondent herein has approached the petitioner on 20.2.2008 made him and his family members to believe that he will see that they get out of the problem, and made them to agree to enter into agreement and accordingly has taken his signature on some non-judicial papers by issuing cheque bearing No.231960 drawn on HDFC Bank, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and when the said cheque was presented, the same was bounced. As such, the petitioner got issued legal notice through his counsel on 13.3.2008. 2nd respondent also got issued legal notice on 10.3.2008 to the petitioner by making false and frivolous allegations that he has paid an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh for the said property for which a reply was given by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the said C.C.No.344 of 2008 is filed by the 2nd respondent in collusion with A. Yadav Reddy with a malafide intention to harass him and as such the said proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, has pleaded that the allegations made in the charge sheet and the complaint clearly establish that the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The averments made by the petitioner in his petition are only brought up as a defence for the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent and the same cannot be looked into at this stage for quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further pleaded that when the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with a malafides and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision rendered in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal and others[1]. In the above said decision, the Apex Court has extracted the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in series of decisions relating to exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as mentioned below: 1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficie3nt ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with a malafides and or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the principle No.7 laid down therein, has contended that in the present case, the criminal proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent are with a malafide intention to wreaking vengeance against the accused in collusion with Yadav Reddy for lodging a complaint by him, against Yadav Reddy and others. The allegations made in the complaint and the charge sheet are that the accused as enjoyer representing that he is the absolute owner of the property and entered into an agreement with the 2nd respondent herein on 11.2.2008 to sell the property for Rs.34.00 lakhs and received an advance amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and subsequently he did not register the said property nor produced the encumbrance certificate, property tax receipt as requested by the 2nd respondent and subsequently the 2nd respondent came to know that the petitioner herein has already sold the said property in favour of Yadav Reddy under Registered Document No.0417 of 2008 dated 29.01.2008. Therefore, from the above averments, it is evident that prior to the entering into of agreement of sale with the 2nd respondent, the petitioner r already executed a registered sale deed in favour of Yadav Reddy on 29.1.2008 for the same property and thereby the petitioner has cheated the 2nd respondent to part with Rs.1.00 lakh as advance. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the said Yadav Reddy has approached the petitioner for purchase of the property but the same has failed and subsequently when he was coming from Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad to go to his house at Nagole, some unknown persons have forcibly abducted him in an auto and taken to Usmania University Campus detained him and obtained his signatures forcibly in non-judicial stamp papers in the presence of Yadav Reddy. Thereafter he lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Crime No.53 of 2008 against Yadav Reddy and others and according to him the said incident has taken place on 22.2.2008. Whereas the agreement of sale was entered into on 11.2.2008 i.e., prior to the above said incident and the registration of the said document in favour of Yadav Reddy took place on 29.1.2008 which is much prior to the date of the said incident on 22.2.2008. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has maliciously has filed the complaint only to harass the petitioner. As already observed above, from the averments made in the complaint, the offence under Section 420 is clearly made out against the present petitioner. The contention of the petitioner appears to be prima facie is not correct. However, the same cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:07.04.2011. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3398 of 2008 Date:07.04.2011 Gk. [1] 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335.