THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.5121 OF 2024

O R D E R

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.13362 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 354, 420, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

02. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tayi, learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Even after service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

03(a). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2, who are builders residing in the same apartment as respondent No.2 and her mother at Friends’ Colony, represented to them that they were constructing a new apartment at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, and offered to sell flats therein. Believing their words, the respondent No.2 purchased two flats in the name of her mother by paying an advance of Rs.10,00,000/- and agreeing to pay Rs.56,00,000/- for each flat. Agreements were executed for Flat Nos.402 and 501. Subsequently, the petitioners-accused informed respondent No.2 that Flat No.402 had been promised to another purchaser and requested her to accept Flat No.201 in its place, to which she consented.

03(b). By the year 2016, the respondent No.2 had paid a total of Rs.94,50,000/-, but the petitioners-accused failed to complete the construction. On persistent demands, they handed over possession of under-construction Flat Nos.501 and 202. Further, on 01.10.2019 at about 16:30 hours, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly attempted to trespass into Flat No.501. When the respondent No.2 and her mother resisted, the petitioners-accused pushed them in the presence of an electrician, outraged their modesty, and criminally intimidated them with threats to vacate the flats and with dire consequences.

04(a). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 have nothing to do with the alleged offences. It is contended that no dishonest or fraudulent intention can be attributed to them from the inception of the transaction. The present criminal case has been instituted as a counterblast to the civil dispute in O.S.No.2280 of 2019 on the file of the learned VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit seeking injunction against respondent No.2, which was decreed in their favour vide judgment and decree dated 10.07.2023.

04(b). It is further submitted that the respondent No.2, having failed to comply with her part of the agreement, was asked to vacate the flat, whereupon she lodged the present false criminal case against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2. It is further brought to notice that the respondent No.2 herself instituted O.S.No.74 of 2020 against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking specific performance of agreement, which is still pending adjudication before the learned XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The allegations leveled against the petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 are false, baseless, and fabricated only for the purpose of the present case.

04(c). It is further contended that there is no incriminating material on record to substantiate the allegations, and there is also an unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. The dispute, if any, is purely civil in nature, and respondent No.2 is attempting to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 354, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, he prayed that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 be quashed.

05. On the other hand, learned Additional Public