Back
Buyer Quashed of Cheating Charges by AP High Court
In a significant ruling clarifying the scope of criminal liability for property purchasers, the , presided over by Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy, has quashed criminal proceedings against a petitioner accused of cheating and forgery. The court held that a purchaser of a property—previously sold via —cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences unless there is clear evidence of conspiracy or prior knowledge of the litigation.
The Conflict: A Tug-of-War Over Property The legal dispute originated from a long-standing civil matter involving property in Guntur. The complainant, Gonuguntla Seshaiah, had previously secured a decree against the original owner, Gali Srinivasa Reddy (A1), leading to a where the complainant became the highest bidder.
While the property was embroiled in subsequent litigation initiated by the family of the original owner, the petitioner, Tellamekala Rama Rao (A2), purchased the same property from A1 in . Following the purchase, the petitioner obtained a bank loan by keeping the property as collateral. The criminal complaint was filed in by the complainant, alleging that the petitioner conspired with A1 to create a fake sale deed to deprive him of the property, invoking charges under .
Arguments Before the Bench The petitioner contended that he was a purchaser, pointing out that at the time of the sale in , the showed no legal hazards, and he had conducted the transaction in good faith. He argued that the criminal case was a retaliatory move intended to harass him, as he had already filed a parallel civil suit (O.S. No. 479 of ) to declare his rights.
Conversely, the complainant and the State argued that the petitioner acted in concert with the original owner to defeat the court’s decree, claiming that the petitioner’s "dishonest intention" was evident in his attempt to mutate the property and secure a loan immediately after the transaction.
Key Observations The Court’s analysis emphasized the necessity of evidence to establish in cases of cheating and forgery. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy remarked:
"There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under can be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of Court... The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection."
The Court further clarified the standard of conduct:
" , there is no material on record to believe that the petitioner/A2 that by the act of purchasing the schedule house property from the respondent No.3/A1, deceived the respondent No.2/de facto complainant."
Drawing on the precedent in , the Court reiterated:
"A charge of forgery cannot be imposed on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made."
Legal Precedent and Conclusion The Court drew support from landmark judgments, including , to determine that criminal proceedings must not be used to settle civil disputes. The Court observed that even if the petitioner purchased a property that was later found to be the subject of a , that fact alone does not constitute a criminal offence absent evidence of fraudulent intent or conspiracy.
"The allegations made in the
, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute any offence or make out a case against the petitioner/A2,"
the Court concluded, directing the quashing of the proceedings in Calendar Case No. 55 of 2020.
This ruling provides much-needed relief to property buyers in the state, establishing that in property disputes, the threshold for criminal prosecution requires proof of intentional deception, not merely the assumption of knowledge of prior legal encumbrances.
