IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.Anupama Chakravarthy, J.
Nayakwadigopala Krishna - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5485 of 2023
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Sec. 482 - Criminal Petition - Ss. 406, 420 r/w Sec. 34 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions of cheating, fraudulent inducement, and the scope of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing proceedings. The judgment highlighted the need for the allegations to constitute a cognizable offense and the application of the legal maxim 'Caveat Emptor' in cases of property transactions.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the accused suppressed the fact that the subject property was under mortgage and induced him into a development agreement, causing financial loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute was civil in nature and the ingredients of the alleged offenses were not attracted to the accused. It emphasized the need for the allegations to constitute a cognizable offense and the application of the legal maxim 'Caveat Emptor' in property transactions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the dispute, the applicability of criminal proceedings, and the alleged suppression of information by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles of cheating, fraudulent inducement, and the scope of Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing proceedings. It emphasized the need for the allegations to constitute a cognizable offense and the application of the legal maxim 'Caveat Emptor' in property transactions.
Final Decision: The Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the accused for the alleged offenses under Ss. 406, 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC were quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.,') by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4, praying this Court to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.396 of 2023 on the file of the Station House Officer, Patancheru Police Station, alleged for the offences under Ss. 406, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jaggari Manikanta Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri A.Ravinder Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jella Srikanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 7/6/2023, the complainant - Sri S.Prakash, Managing Partner of Anmol Developers lodged a complaint alleging that while he was engaged in the business of Real Estate and during the course of the said business, he came across Mr.Nayakwadi Gopala Krishna, who revealed his interest in Real Estate and represented that he and his family members are absolute owners and possessors of the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.163, Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.160, Ac.2.07 guntas in Sy.No.163/U, Ac.2.08 guntas in Sy.No.163/1/A/B, total admeasuring Ac.8.23 guntas situated at Rameswaram Banda Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District by virtue of Sale Deed bearing Nos.19695/2015, 16814/2015, 1293/1983 and 2244/1982. Further, Nayakwadi Gopala Krishna insisted him to develop the subject property into residential duplex houses and as a result Development Agreementcum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing document No.1524/2019 was executed by Mr.Nayakwadi Gopala Krishna in favour of respondent No.2 and accordingly, respondent No.2 has became the absolute owner and possessor of the aforesaid property. In the complaint, it is also stated that the subject property was in an uneven and undulate condition and there was also huge pit on the subject property and after spending a huge amount of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 for leveling the subject property, respondent No.2 was subjected to hardships. Further, all of a sudden after applying for all the permissions, the petitioners herein opposed for developing the said property and the said action of Mr.Gopala Krishna and his family led respondent No.2 to mental agony and huge financial loss, which cannot be compensated in any manner. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have suppressed the fact that the subject property was under mortgage with APSFC (Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation) vide document No.18688 of 2017. Basing on the above complaint, F.I.R. has been registered and the petitioners herein were arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. He contended that the ingredients of Ss. 405, 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC are not at all attracted against the petitioners. He also contended that the allegations made in the complaint discloses that the case is purely civil in nature and without involvement of the petitioners in crime, the case cannot be registered against the petitioners.
5. It is specifically contended by the learned Senior Counsel that originally the land admeasuring Ac.13.05 guntas situated in Sy.No.163, Rameswarambanda Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District and that Sy.No.163 was sub-divided and Nayakwadi Ramaswamy was the absolute owner, pattadar holder and possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.163/Part admeasuring Ac.6.23 guntas, and the same is evident from the KhasaraPahani 1954-55. Further, Nayakwadi Ramaswamy died leaving behind his three sons namely Bojaiah, Laxmaiah and Narsimhulu and land was notionally recorded in the name of his three sons i.e., Anja
Dr.Sharda Prasad Sinha V. State of Bihar
Inder Mohan Goswami and another V. State of Uttaranchal and others
Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration
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.
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case of a criminal offence.
Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not permit quashing proceedings when prima facie evidence of a crime is present, mandating a trial to ascertain truth.
The court emphasized the need for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice to exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 482, and highlighted the necessity to balance law enforcement ....
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations only constitute a civil dispute without intent to cheat.
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 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 principle that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, especially in the presence of pending....
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.