Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 1092
2012 (1) ALD (Cri) 725
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
K.G. SHANKAR
K.K. Venkata Ratnam & Others
Versus
The State of A.P. & Another
Crl.Petition No.5308 of 2008
Decided on : 07-12-2011
For the Petitioners:C. Padmanabha Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, P. Rangaiah Naidu, Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 420, 120B, 468, 471 –Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing of Property – Property Law –Sale Deed –Punishment of Criminal Conspirancy – Present criminal petition has predominant civil flavour learned senior counsel for three petitioners contends that dispute between petitioners and the second respondent are civil in nature and that the First Information Report in Crime on file of Police Station, West Godavari District, therefore, is liable to be quashed – Learned senior counsel for second respondent admits that disputes between the parties have civil law implications and that apart from the civil liability petitioners also bore criminal liability so much so FIR cannot be quashed – Second respondent is last son of entered into an agreement of sale respect of cents of land – Later on file of Principal Junior Civil Judge seeking for specific performance of agreement of sale – He laid the suit against as well as his brother conditionally decreed suit was decreed in favour on condition that pay defendants therein – It is case of second respondent that never complied with condition and that decree in became an unenforceable decree Subsequently entered into an agreement of sale with third petitioner in 1980 in respect of cents of land including covered – Held, -Dishonest intention envisaged under Section 420 IPC is to induce deceived person to deliver any property or to perform such other functions as mentioned under Act – As already pointed out by me person effected by false recitals in sale deed is second petitioner second respondent cannot contend that first petitioner made false recitals in the sale deed executed in favour of the second petitioner and that the first petitioner consequently is liable for punishment unless second petitioner joins cause – Second petitioner has not complained about the recitals in the sale deed recitals are incorrect recourse open to second respondent is to proceed for a declaration that recitals in the sale deed are false or for a cancellation of the sale deed or for both. He, however, cannot contend that the first petitioner committed the offence u/s.420 IPC – Consequently, the allegation that the first petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of the second petitioner with incorrect recitals is not tantamount to cheating the second respondent within the meaning of Section 420 IPC. The first petitioner prima facie is not liable for the offence as against second respondent. The other allegation against the first petitioner is u/s.120B IPC for conspiracy with petitioners defraud and cheat the second respondent offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC are prima facie not made out, the offence u/s.120B IPC automatically is not made out – Criminal Petition is allowed.
1. The present criminal petition has predominant civil flavour. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel for the three petitioners contends that the dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent are civil in nature and that the First Information Report (FIR, for short) in Crime No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Bhimadolu Police Station, West Godavari District, therefore, is liable to be quashed. Sri P. Rangayya Naidu, learned senior counsel for the second respondent admits that the disputes between the parties have civil law implications and that apart from the civil liability, the petitioners also bore criminal liability, so much so, the FIR cannot be quashed.
2. The second respondent is the private complaint before the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Eluru. The petitioners are the accused. The third petitioner is said to be no more. This petition, therefore, stands abated so far the third petitioner is concerned.
3. The brief facts of the private complaint are as follows:
a) The properties admeasuring Ac.2.74 cents, which is subject matter, were owned by one Kalli Raja Rao. The properties are situate at Ac.2.34 cents in Survey No.39/2 and Ac.0.40 cents in Survey No.39/3 totalling Ac.2.74 cents at Pulla village, West Godavari District.
b) Kalli Raja Rao has five sons. The second respondent is the last son of Kalli Raja Rao. In 1970’s one D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu entered into an agreement of sale with Kalli Raja Rao in respect of the Ac.2.74 cents of land. Later, D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu filed O.S.No.805 of 1973 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru seeking for specific performance of the agreement of sale. He laid the suit against Kalli Raja Rao as well as his brother Kalli Venkata Rao. On 31.12.1976, O.S.No.805 of 1973 was conditionally decreed. The suit was decreed in favour of D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu on the condition that the D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu should pay Rs.11300/- to the defendants therein. It is the case of the second respondent that D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu never complied with the condition and that therefore, the decree in O.S.No.805 of 1973 became an unenforceable decree (or it should be considered that O.S.No.805 of 1973 was dismissed, as the condition was not complied with by D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu). Subsequently, Kalli Raja Rao entered into an agreement of sale with the third petitioner in 1980 in respect of Ac.19.96 cents of land including Ac.2.76 cents covered by O.S.No.805 of 1973.
c) Kalli Raja Rao filed O.S.No.28 of 1985 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Magistrate, Eluru seeking for the cancellation of the agreement of sale in favour of the third petitioner. The third petitioner in his turn filed O.S.No.37 of 1985 on the file of the same Court seeking for the specific performance of the agreement of sale executed by Kalli Raja Rao. After full-fledged trial of both the cases, O.S.No.28 of 1985 laid by Kalli Raja Rao was decreed. O.S.No.37 of 1985 laid by the third petitioner was dismissed. Appeals were preferred by the third petitioner in A.S.Nos.2058 and 1052 of 1996 before this Court. The appeals were dismissed in June, 2007. Special Leave Petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court. The same are pending before the Supreme Court.
d) On 15.11.1983 D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu transferred the decree in O.S.No.805 of 1973 dated 31.12.1976 in favour of the first petitioner. On the basis of the transferred decree, the first petitioner filed E.P.No.109 of 1984. It may be recalled that D.V.K. Sitarama Somajayajulu did not comply with the condition of deposit of Rs.11,300/- as ordered in O.S.No.805 of 1973. On 23.12.1986 E.P.No.109 of 1984 was dismissed. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the second respondent that in view of the legal history, the first petitioner has no right or interest over Ac.2.74 cents in respect of which D.V.K. Sitarama Somayajulu entered into an agreement of sale with K
