The court held that allegations against the petitioner-accused No.4 did not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC due to lack of fraudulent intent.

ORDER :

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.5047 of 2022 pending on the file of learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.2 as well as Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that there was an understanding between the accused No.3 and the complainant in respect of sale of Flat No.F2, First Floor, B-5, Road No.2, Phase-I, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. In pursuant to the said understanding, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused No.3 towards advance sale consideration. The agreed total sale consideration was Rs.50,00,000/-. Thereafter, the possession of the above said property was delivered in favour of the complainant in the month of March, 2007. The accused No.3 without coming forward for execution of sale deed, demanded an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-. But the accused No.3 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, for which, the complainant filed a complaint and the same was investigated and charge sheet was filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.2935 of 2018. The accused No.3 colluded with his relatives i.e. the accused Nos.1 and 2, executed a registered sale deed dated 12.12.2019 in respect of the above property in favour of the petitioner-accused No.4. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint to take necessary action against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offence. There is no dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner-accused No.4. There is no element of cheating against the petitioner-accused No.4. The petitioner- accused No.4 has purchased the above said property by way of Registered Sale deed dated 12.12.2019. The complainant filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2021 on the file of the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the accused Nos.1 to 3 including the petitioner-accused No.4 seeking specific performance of oral Agreement of Sale dated 15.03.2007. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No.4 are purely civil in nature and the respondent No.2-complainant is trying to convert the civil dispute into a criminal dispute. The contents of the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence under Section 420 of IPC.

05. With the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengal and another, [2023 LiveLaw(SC) 67] wherein it was held at Paragraph No.11 that:

“11. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April, 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get