IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
P.B. Srinivas and Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P. and Others - Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 1097, 4473 of 2019
Decided On : 17-09-2024
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - IPC Section 420 - The court interpreted Section 420 of IPC regarding cheating and the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., concluding that the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence, thus quashing the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of cheating the complainant by fraudulently executing sale deeds for property claimed by her. The complainant alleged that the petitioners had no right to sell the property, leading to criminal charges under Section 420 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not disclose any criminal offence under Section 420 IPC, as there was no evidence of fraudulent inducement or deception towards the complainant, indicating the case was civil in nature.
Issues: Whether the charge sheet in C.C.No.390/2018 against the petitioners under Section 420 IPC should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offence under Section 420 IPC, there must be evidence of cheating and dishonest inducement, which was absent in this case, thus justifying the quashing of the proceedings.
Result: The proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 are quashed against the petitioners.
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
These two Criminal Petitions are filed seeking to quash C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur filed against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1097 of 2019 are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2; petitioner in Crl.P.No.4473 of 2019 was arraigned as accused No.3, in C.C.No.390 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. The respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. On 15.04.2017, the 2nd respondent herein has approached the Salur Town Police Station and reported that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed fraud and cheated her by dealing with the properties situated in Sy.No.216-1B, 1C of Gumadam Village, Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District which belong to her; that the accused Nos.1 and 2 have illegally, knowingly and with fraudulent intention executed registered sale deeds vide document bearing Nos.1460, 1461, 1462/2015, dated 27.06.2015 in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. The 2nd respondent further submitted that the accused Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.9817 of 2015 wherein they have stated that they are the owners and possessors of the land situated in TS.No.159/2, 162/2 of Salur Town, which is recorded as grama kantam in village record; that the accused Nos.1 and 2 sought direction from the Court in terms of the orders passed in another W.P.No.1339 of 2014, wherein there was a direction to effect registrations of lands in Sy.Nos.159/2, 162/2 situated in Salur Town. The said writ petition filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 was disposed of on 08.04.2015, basing on which the accused Nos.1 and 2 executed registered sale deeds of the property belonging to the respondent No.2 of Sy.No.216-B/1C/Gundam revenue village, Salur Town in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has approached the District Collector expressing her grievance, who in turn had addressed a letter dated 16.09.2016 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Parvathipuram who in turn had entrusted the matter to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has submitted a report dated 14.10.2016 to the District Collector, stating that the land shown with specified boundaries in sale deeds is in respect of Sy.No.216-1B, 1C Gumadam revenue village but not in respect of Sy.No.162-2. The respondent No.2 further submitted that her lands are situated in Sy.No.216, Katha No.655 which stands in the name of her father in law and that she is the legal heir of the said property. As such, the 2nd respondent has requested the police to register a case against the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The Sub-Registrar who has registered unlawful documents by suppressing the real facts was arraigned as accused No.3, the purchasers of the said property were arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 6 and the mediators, attesters of the documents were arraigned as accused Nos.7 and 8. Basing on the said report submitted by the 2nd respondent, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2017 against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. After due investigation, the police have filed the impugned charge sheet in C.C.No.390 of 2018 against the accused on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur. Seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.390 of 2018 against the accused Nos.1 to 3, the present petitions have been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments contended that the 2nd respondent in her statement stated that there was a partition suit which was pending before the Civil Court between herself and the family members. The dispute between the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein is purely a civil in nature and the present complaint is filed to harass the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent has no right to claim over the property in Sy.No.216 of Gumdam Village, Salur Town as it belongs to the Government as
Vesa Holdings Private Limited & Another Vs. State of Kerala & Others
The court established that allegations of cheating must demonstrate fraudulent inducement, which was not present, allowing for the quashing of criminal proceedings.
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offenses, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of criminal intent to sustain charges of cheating.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
The court established that civil disputes should not be cloaked as criminal offences, and quashing is warranted when no prima facie case exists.
The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the court or if quashing the proceedings would serve ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for allegations to constitute a cognizable offense and the application of the legal maxim 'Caveat Emptor' in property transactions.
Criminal liability can arise from civil disputes; allegations of fraud and conspiracy must be examined despite ongoing civil litigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.