Back
2012 Supreme(AP) 399
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
A. Ramesh Babu Singarayakonda, Prakasam District
Versus
State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyd.
Criminal Petition No.13244 of 2011
Decided On : 09-04-2012
For the Petitioner:T. Bali Reddy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Public Prosecutor, R2, C. Padmanabha Reddy, Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code –Section 482- Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 – Quash of Criminal Procedure – Criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1 in Crime to quash the proceeding therein. Farms and Villas Limited-2nd respondent is a Public Company Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of procuring lands and urban properties for development, construction and to sell plots, farm sites and villas etcetera to customers in the State of Andhra Pradesh petitioner is one of the promoter Directors of the company. Negotiated with A-2, A-3- and A-5- for purchase of 14,850 square feet, Ongole. A-2 to A-5 agreed to sell the land admeasuring 14,850 sq. feet in favour of the complainant company received a total consideration of Rs.15,70,00,000/-. petitioner-A-1 instead of obtaining registered sale deeds in favour of the company obtained a sale deed bearing Document for a part of the property in favour of in which he has substantial interest. Subsequently, A-1 obtained sale deeds in his individual name from A-2 to A-5, vide sale deeds sale consideration has been flowed from the funds of the complainant company. A1 instead of getting the sale deeds in the name of the company obtained sale deeds in the name of Enterprises (A-6), wherein he has substantial interest, and also in his individual name. Thereby, A-1 in collusion with A-2 to A-6 played fraud on the complainant company and committed breach of trust rendering themselves liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 read with 120-B IPC –Held, Funds of the company were entrusted to the petitioner for purchase of the property from the landowners/A-2 to A-5. He having entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the property for the 2nd respondent-company proceeded to obtain registered sale deeds in his individual name as if the sale consideration has been paid out of his own funds. The conduct of the petitioner prima facie constitutes criminal breach of trust. Of course, a contention has been advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent-complainant settled their disputes and pursuant to the settlement, MoU has been arrived at on 4-6-2011 and in case of failure of any of terms of the MoU, the petitioner has to workout his remedies by approaching competent civil Court. No doubt, the aggrieved party to the MoU can approach the civil Court for enforcement of his rights. It is well settled that the courts are not prevented from taking cognizance of the offence merely because on the same facts, a civil suit can be filed if the allegations in the complaint disclose criminal offence complaint should not be dismissed merely because civil liability also arises. For the purpose of quashing a complaint, it is necessary to consider whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie make out an offence or not. It is not necessary to scrutinize the allegations for the purpose of deciding whether such allegations are likely to be upheld in the trial. Any action by way of quashing complaint is an action to be taken at the threshold before the evidence is led in support of the complaint. It is, therefore, necessary to consider whether on the facts of allegations, a criminal offence is constituted or not – Criminal Petition is dismissed.
This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by A-1-A.Ramesh Babu in Crime No.642 of 2011 of IV Town P.S., Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam city to quash the proceeding therein.
2(a). M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms and Villas (India) Limited-2nd respondent is a Public Company Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of procuring lands and urban properties for development, construction and to sell plots, farm sites and villas etcetera to customers in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner-Aatmakru Ramesh Babu is one of the promoter Directors of the company. He negotiated with A-2-Gurram Janaki Ram, A-3-Bommidala Padma Lakshmi, A-4-Gobburu Mamatha and A-5-Gurram Venkata Rangam Babji for purchase of 14,850 square feet situated at Ward No.2, Block-2, T.S.No.90, Ongole. A-2 to A-5 agreed to sell the land admeasuring 14,850 sq. feet in favour of the complainant company. They received a total consideration of Rs.15,70,00,000/-. The petitioner-A-1 instead of obtaining registered sale deeds in favour of the company obtained a sale deed bearing Document No. 4648 of 2011 for a part of the property in favour of M/s. Vani Enterprises (A-6) in which he has substantial interest. Subsequently, A-1 obtained sale deeds in his individual name from A-2 to A-5, vide sale deeds dated 19-4-2011, Doc.No.4665/2011, 20/4/2011, Doc.No.4769/2011 and 20-4-2011, Doc.No.4770/20-11. The sale consideration has been flowed from the funds of the complainant company. A1 instead of getting the sale deeds in the name of the company obtained sale deeds in the name of M/s. Vani Enterprises (A-6), wherein he has substantial interest, and also in his individual name. Thereby, A-1 in collusion with A-2 to A-6 played fraud on the complainant company and committed breach of trust rendering themselves liable for punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 read with 120-B IPC.
2(b) The 2nd respondent-M/s. Akshaya Gold Farms and Villas (India) Limited presented a complaint before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, IV Town P.S., Visakhapatnam under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the SHO, IV Town P.S., Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam registered a case in Crime No.642 of 2011 and issued F.I.R. Hence this petition by A-1-A.Ramesh Babu to quash the proceeding therein. For better understanding of the accusations made against the petitioner-A-1, I deem it appropriate to refer paras 7 and 8 of the complaint, which read as hereunder:-
“7. A retrospection of the whole episode and the events unfolded till now, to the shock of the complainant reveal that, Accused No.1 is hand in glove with the Accused No.2 to 6 and had carefully planned and deliberately and cheated the Company to a tune of 15.70 Crores by fraudulently getting the property registered in his individual (Accused No.1 and in the name of M/s. Vani Enterprises, represented by Accused No.6) instead of getting the same registered in the name of the complainant. The complainant further submits that now, the Accused No.1 is trying to move out of the company by sending his resignation letter and is trying to alienate the property to third parties and in which case the complainant sustains huge loss to the tune of several crores of amount. Thus, the complainant was cheated. The complainant, on account of various representations and inducements of the Accused No.1 to 5 was made to entrust the property i.e., the funds of the complainant coupled with its mandate to A1 to get the property registered in the name of the complainant. However, the Accused No.1, having conspired with the Accused No.2 to 5 as well as A6, breached the trust and confidence reposed by the Complainant and dishonestly misappropriated and converted the same by getting the Sale Deeds registered in his name for his own use and also for the use and benefit of A6 and M/s. Vani
