THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.14859 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 482 of Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner-accused No.1 seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.2109 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendra Nagar at Ranga Reddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 420 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Sanisetty Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Notice sent to respondent No.2-de facto complainant was returned with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Unclaimed notice is deemed to be proper service of notice.

Perused the record.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the de facto complainant is the Managing Partner of M/s. Linga Jyothi Associates, a partnership firm having its office at H.No.1-5-5, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. In July, 2010, the de facto complainant approached the accused for a lease of open plot admeasuring Ac.4.03 gts. in Sy.Nos.399 and 400 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar, for a rent of Rs.5,00,000/- per month for 12 years, with an agreed 10% annual enhancement of monthly rent and subject to deposit of refundable security of Rs.15,00,000/-. Pursuant to the same, the de facto complainant paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the accused. However, the accused failed to execute the registered lease deed in favour of the de facto complainant. Despite repeated applications, the de facto complainant could not obtain building permission from GHMC as possession of subject plot was not delivered in his favour by the accused. On 18.12.2013, the de facto complainant paid an additional amount of Rs.1,05,000/- towards renewal of lease and survey expenses. Later, on noticing the commencement of installation of a retail petrol outlet over an extent of 1066 square yards in the subject plot, the de facto complainant, upon enquiry, discovered that the accused executed a lease deed, dated 18.10.2013 in favour of one K.V.Chalapathi Rao, Director of M/s. Samriddhi Petrol Products Private Limited, Secunderabad, who obtained all necessary permissions and set up the petrol bunk. When confronted, the accused denied execution of such deed. The accused leased the remaining portion of the land to others on 05.07.2014. Consequently, the de facto complainant firm filed O.S.No.795 of 2014 against the accused. The accused have threatened the de facto complainant’s partners with dire consequences and have cheated them intentionally.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.1. The petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case by the de facto complainant, only to wreck vengeance in view of the land disputes between them, which are purely civil in nature and a civil suit is pending. The civil suit filed by the de facto complainant i.e., O.S.No.795 of 2014 was dismissed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, vide judgment dated 06.03.2024. Except bald allegations, no specific overt acts are attributed to the petitioner and the ingredients of offences alleged against him are not made out. This Court, by order dated 11.09.2024, in Crl.P.No.9347 of 2018 has quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.2 and 3. Since the petitioner herein also stands on the same footing, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4.2. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahadeo Savlaram Shelke v. Puna Municipal Corporation, (1995) 3 SCC 733, wherein, it is held that no orders can be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons who are in unlawful possession of the property. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India

Limited, (2006) 6 SCC 736, wher