THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15784 of 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.965 of 2024 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hyathnagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.06.2023, respondent No.2/the de facto complainant filed a complaint with the Police against the petitioner and other accused persons stating that the second wife of the petitioner had filed F.C.O.P.No.244 of 2021, seeking Rs.1 crore as permanent alimony, in addition to the dissolution of the marriage. In the sale deed executed by her in favor of their sons, she alleged that as early as 2014, the petitioner had orally gifted his school building to her. If this claim was true, she would not have sought Rs.1 crore as permanent alimony in F.C.O.P.

No.244 of 2021. It is further stated that on 06.01.2022, the property in question, bearing H.No.5-97, located in Survey No.71, Injapur Village, near Indira Public School, Manuguru, was estimated to be worth over Rs.10 crores in the open market. It sits on a plot of 600 square yards with a building area exceeding 20,200 square feet. This clearly indicates there was no oral gift to the second wife. Instead, she and her sons allegedly colluded to fabricate the sale deed, which they registered fraudulently with the aid of the registration department. They are therefore liable for prosecution for creating a false sale deed and making fraudulent claims to seize the petitioner’s property.

3. Based on this complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No.641 of 2023 and after completing the investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet vide C.C.No.965 of 2024 before the Junior Civil Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hyathnagar for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406, read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner/accused No.1 has now filed the present criminal petition to challenge the same.

4. Heard Smt. J. Seetha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a family settlement deed has already been executed between the parties, and based on the said settlement; the petitioner alienated the property in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3. She further submitted that respondent No.2 has already instituted a suit before the trial Court vide O.S.No.326 of 2023 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deed. Learned counsel contended that the issues raised by respondent No.2 are civil in nature and are already under adjudication before the competent Civil Court. She further submitted that there are no ingredients to attract the offences of criminal breach of trust or cheating. More importantly, it was pointed out that accused Nos.2 and 3 are not the sons of the petitioner, but are the sons of respondent No.2 and his first wife. Hence, she prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed by allowing the present criminal petition.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that although there is no gift deed executed in favour of the petitioner, she proceeded to execute a registered sale deed in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner committed a criminal breach of trust and prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having considered the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the only allegation against the pet