IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that civil disputes should not be transformed into criminal cases without the necessary ingredients of a criminal offence, allowing the quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the order dated 13.07.2023 against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8 passed in Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, confirming the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 447, 463, 464, 471, 506 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a petition before the trial Court, vide Crl.R.P.No.42 of 2022, under Section 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C against the order dated 29.03.2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019 by the learned XXVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam. In the first instance, the petitioners filed a petition, vide Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 in C.C.No.129 of 2019, under Section 239 of Cr.P.C to discharge them stating that initially the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 only, thereafter, the Police filed additional charge sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8. When the complaint was given by respondent No.2/de facto complainant, she mentioned about the pendency of the suit i.e., O.S.No.60 of 2015 before the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, wherein the petitioners were defendants in the said suit. At the time of filing of charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6, the Police were aware about the gift settlement deed which was executed in favour of the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8. It is further stated that without any statement given by respondent No.2, the Police filed a supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners stating that Investigating Officer came to know about the execution of gift settlement deed in their favour after filing of the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6.

3. It is further stated that there is no evidence to prove the charges of either cheating or receipt of wrongful gain from the petitioners/accused Nos.7 and 8, and there is no intention on the part of the petitioners to deceive any one as they did not alienate the property after execution of registered Gift Settlement Deed in their favour. It is further stated that the petitioners did not involve in any transaction with accused Nos.1 to 6, and they never conspired with other accused.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022 stating that the petitioners were defendants in the suit, vide O.S.No.60 of 2015, but the fact that execution of registered sale deed Nos.396 and 397 of 2014 were not mentioned in the complaint. It is a matter of record that charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 6 on 31.01.2019, and the said registered sale deeds were filed by respondent No.2 before the Investigating Officer on 14.07.2019. After verification of the said registered sale deeds, supplementary charge sheet was filed against the petitioners stating that the petitioners were trespassed into the subject property with an intention to grab the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No.42 of 2022 and the same was also dismissed by the revision Court on 13.07.2023 confirming the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.178 of 2022. Hence, the petitioners filed the present criminal petition.

5. Heard Sri Kiran Palakurthi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri H. Prahalada Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the husband of respondent No.2 was the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No