IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. Sri Devi, J.
Natraj Rajendra Babu and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
P.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 9868 of 2016
Decided On : 08-07-2021
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 and 200 - Offence of Cheating – Criminal intimidation – Criminal breach of trust - Charged - Case in Crime No. of II Town Police Station, came to be registered against petitioners herein and two others for offence punishable , basing on complaint lodged by second respondent/de facto complainant herein - In said complaint, it is stated by second respondent that he has purchased plot No.13 admeasuring 220 square yards in Sy.No. and situated , in auction conducted by State Bank of India, and he has paid the entire consideration and on such payment, bank authorities, on got registered said plot in his name bearing document No and handed over document to him - Thereafter, he came to know that plot which was registered in his name has no relevance to plot which was shown to him and it belongs to others - In this regard, 2nd respondent requested Bank Manager to get said plot surveyed and hand over possession to him, but Bank Manager did not do so, due to which he sustained mental stress and financial loss and that Bank Manager has cheated him and requested to take legal action against Bank Manager and his staff as per law – Held, after conducting auction, sale certificate was also issued and same was registered with District Registrar and record further discloses that challenging sale, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed S.A.No. before Debts Recovery Tribunal and also obtained status quo order with regard to confirmation of sale and also physical possession of the property vide docket order dated and said order is still in force - Further, earlier complaint filed by 2nd respondent against petitioners and borrowers, which was registered as Crime No. with same set of allegations, has already been closed as “civil in nature” - So under these circumstances, learned Magistrate is not justified in entertaining private complaint and no purpose will be served by allowing proceedings to continue against the petitioners herein and as such same are liable to be quashed - Criminal Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, which was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 of I.P.C.
2. The facts which led to filing of the present Criminal Petition are as under :
3. The Police investigated into the matter and filed a final report stating that the 3rd respondent (A-3) obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-on 15.12.2010 from the 2nd petitioner (A-2) for his trading business and that the 4th respondent (A-4), who is the mother of the 3rd respondent, stood as a guarantor for the loan facility and also created equitable mortgage over the subject property. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent (A-3) committed irregularities in operating the loan account and that the loan account was classified as Non Performing Asset. It is further stated that the matter is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad vide S.A.No.485 of 2013 and a Writ Petition No.682 of 2015 is also pending before this Court. It is further stated in the final report that the Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad, has given an opinion that since the matter pertains to land/plot dispute, the same shall be settled before the concerned civil Court. Hence, the Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town
Police Station, Nizamabad, filed the final report on 31.07.2015 referring the case as “Civil Nature”. Thereafter, on 15.12.2015, the 2nd respondent herein, who is the de facto complainant in Crime No.161 of 2014, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. By an order dated 05.03.2016, the learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement of the 2nd respondent herein, took the case on file against the petitioners (A-1 and A-2) and respondents (A-3 and A-4) for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 of I.P.C., and issued summons to them. Challenging the said order of taking cognizance of the case, the petitioners herein filed W.P.No.15320 of 2016 before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.06.2016, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue an alternative remedy available under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.107 of 2016.
4. Heard Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent; M/s.Vankina Allu and Partners, learned Counsel appear
Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the protection provided under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings when the actions are taken in ....
Bank officials conducting auctions under the SARFAESI Act are entitled to immunity from prosecution for actions taken in good faith, and allegations of cheating must be substantiated by clear evidenc....
The court quashed proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, ruling that allegations of forgery lacked merit and constituted an abuse of process due to pending appeal in Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
The SARFAESI Act mandates exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226; procedural compliance is essential, and the auction process cannot be set aside absent s....
The Court emphasized that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and that the Court should not inquire about the reliability or genuinene....
No civil court can exercise jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determined.
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when it appears that the proceedings are abuse of process of court, the High Court in exercise of its powers should not allow injustice but promote justice and Court a....
Bank estopped from SARFAESI enforcement against bona fide plot purchasers without notice when it consented to land subdivision, sales, and received proceeds for mortgage release, with clean encumbran....
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.