The main legal point established is the need to discourage giving criminal color to civil disputes and the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a charge sheet.

ORDER :

This order will dispose of both Criminal Petition Nos.2341 of 2018 and 6561 of 2019.

2. Heard Mr. V. Hariharan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.2341 of 2018 and for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.6561 of 2019. Also heard Mr. P. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2341 of 2018 and for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6561 of 2019.

3. At the outset, facts of Crl.P.No.2341 of 2018 may be adverted to.

4. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) for quashing of charge sheet No.233 of 2017 dated 03.10.2017 in C.C.No.764 of 2017 pending before the Court of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

5. Petitioner – C.M. Ramesh was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Rithwik Projects Limited (respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.6561 of 2019). However, petitioner resigned from M/s. Rithwik Projects Limited (referred to hereinafter as ‘the company’) in the year 2012. Since his resignation he is totally aloof and has nothing to do with the affairs of the company. In fact, Registrar of Companies had issued Form No.32 stating that petitioner had retired from the company with effect from 29.02.2012.

6. Petitioner became a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) from the later part of the year 2012.

7. Company is the absolute owner of the house bearing No.8-2-293/82/A/1323/A measuring 1439 sq. yards in road No.67, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, having purchased the said property through a registered sale deed dated 30.04.2008. The property is a building surrounded by vacant land. The plot in question was sold by the Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society (‘Society’ hereinafter) to the predecessors-in-title of the company.

8. Adjacent plot No.1342A measuring 1191 sq. yards in road No.67, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, was purchased by late KVS Suryanarayana, husband of the second respondent Smt. Kameswari through a registered sale deed dated 30.07.1985 from the Society. The said plot is towards the eastern side of the plot owned by the company. The two properties are situated opposite to each other and are on either side of road No.67 which is a 50 ft. wide road with a dead end.

9. It is stated that in July, 2017, the company came to know that the second respondent had got executed a document titled as supplemental – cum – rectification deed dated 02.12.2011 changing the extent of plot No.1342A from 1191 sq. yards to 1266 sq. yards with the connivance of the Society.

10. According to the company, the said document i.e. supplemental – cum – rectification deed is a sham meant to grab a portion of the public road in front and a part of the land belonging to the company.

11. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent got executed in her favour yet another registered sale deed dated 03.01.2012 for another portion of land measuring 145 sq. yards in the same plot No.1342A again with the connivance of the Society. The sale deed showed an extent of 145 sq. yards towards the northern side of plot No.1342A, overlapping the 50 feet road No.67 in between and plot No.1323A of the company.

12. According to the petitioner, the effect of the two deeds i.e. supplemental – cum – rectification deed dated 02.12.2011 and sale deed dated 03.01.2012 is that the 2nd respondent owns the 50 feet road separating her property from the plot of the company which would mean that the company would not have any ingress or aggress from road No.67, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

13. On 11.06.2017 second respondent attempted to start construction on road No.67 which was resisted by the company. O.S.No.586 of 2017 was immediately instituted by the company on 13.06.2017 before the Court of IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction against the second respondent from occupying the road No.67. Further, when it came to light that Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had changed the layout plan of plot No.1342A at the instance of the second respondent, the compan