2020 Supreme(Telangana) 253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
G. Sri Devi, J.
K. Naveen Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2199 of 2019
Decided On : 10-03-2020
K. Suresh Reddy, Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120 (B) read 34 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 482 , 102 and 451 to 459 – Offence of Criminal breach of trust - Crimial conspiracy - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Charged - A-1 is a Tax Consultant and A-2 is son of A-1 and they are main persons involved in scam of bogus challans with active connivance of some of officials of Bodhan Circle - It is further alleged that accused created forged challans on behalf of dealers who had to pay their taxes and conveniently mixed them along with genuine challans and credited to other dealers who resorted to fraudulent means to avoid payment of tax - Subsequently, they managed staff of Commercial Tax Office, Circle and entered full amount to genuine dealer and also payment to fraudulent dealers thereby caused huge loss to State exchequer - Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., filed Crl.M.P.No. before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, seeking a direction to Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, to freeze further registrations on immovable properties belonging to A-1 and A-2 –Held, crime was registered on against A-1 to A-5, for offences punishable - Alleged that A-1 and A-2 in collusion with officials of Commercial Tax Office, Bodhan (A-3 to A-5), created bogus challans paid by genuine VAT payers and caused entries in VATIS portal as false entries and that investigation is in progress – During course of investigation C.I.D. filed a requisition before learned Magistrate to freeze list of properties stands in name of A-1 and A-2 and their family members stating that A-1 and A-2 have procured immovable properties worth Crores of rupees and some other places and basing on said requisition, learned Magistrate passed orders on and addressed a letter dated - Petitioner, who is a third party had purchased property i.e., M.No.5-4-38, situated from A-1 and his wife - A perusal of the material on record would show that A-1 and his wife had purchased subject property in year and VAT Act came into force in year and report itself discloses that A-1 and A-2 committed offence from onwards - Since vendors of petitioner have acquired the subject property in year, same is nothing to do with present crime which was committed from onwards - Therefore, this Court is of opinion that freezing subject property is illegal - Criminal Petition is allowed - Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
JUDGMENT
G.Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, to defreeze the property covered under document No.9374/2017 dated 16.12.2017 shown at Sl.No.2 in the list of properties.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on a written complaint filed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Bodhan Circle, Nizamabad District, the Inspector of Police, Bodhan Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2017 against one S.L.Shiva Raj (A-1), S.V.Sunil (A-2), Hanuman Singh (A-3), Venugopal Swamy (A-4) and R.D.Vijaya Krishna (A-5) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. It is alleged that A-1 is a Tax Consultant and A-2 is the son of A-1 and they are the main persons involved in the scam of bogus challans with the active connivance of some of the officials of Bodhan Circle. It is further alleged that the accused created forged challans on behalf of the dealers who had to pay their taxes and conveniently mixed them along with the genuine challans and credited to the other dealers who resorted to fraudulent means to avoid payment of tax. Subsequently, they managed the staff of Commercial Tax Office, Bodhan Circle and entered the full amount to the genuine dealer and also payment to the fraudulent dealers, thereby caused huge loss to the State exchequer. They also used to append the stamps of the Office of Commercial Tax Office, Treasury Office and the State Bank of Hyderabad along with the signatures. They also created forged challans without actual payment by the concerned dealers and cheated the Government. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to C.I.D., Hyderabad and the same is pending investigation.
3. While the things stood thus, the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., filed Crl.M.P.No.908 of 2018 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, seeking a direction to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, to freeze further registrations on the immovable properties belonging to A-1 and A-2. By order, dated 19.05.2018, the learned Magistrate allowed the said petition and addressed a letter, on 21.05.2018, to Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, directing him to freeze further registrations on the immovable properties belonging to A-1, his wife S.Suryakala and his son (A-2) for the purpose of further investigation.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased a house belonging to A-1 and his wife S.Suryakala under a registered sale deed bearing document No.9374 of 2017, dated 16.12.2017 for a valuable consideration and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs. 1.00 Crore from Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, and mortgaged the said property. Subsequently, having come to know about the passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1830 of 2018 in Crime No.52 of 2017, seeking a direction to the Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration and Stamps, Hyderabad, to delete the property bearing M.No.5-4-38, situated at Dwarakanagar, Nizamabad, which is shown as Sl.No.2 in the list of properties and also covered by document No.9374 of 2017. It is submitted that A-1 has nothing to do with the said property as it was purchased by the wife of A-1 under a registered document No.2851/1995 dated 12.05.1995, with her Streedhana. It is further submitted that since the vendors of the petitioner have acquired the said property in the year 1995, the same is nothing to do with the above crime.
5. The respondent/complainant filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable under law as the petitioner prays the Court to sit in appeal on an order passed by the same Court, which is not tenable under law and the Court has no power to review its own order and that the petitioner has no locus s