The pendency of a civil dispute does not preclude criminal proceedings if the allegations in the complaint disclose a prima facie case of criminality, such as trespass or cheating, which requires trial to determine veracity.

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.1390 of 2021 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 452 and 506 read with 120-B IPC.

2. Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent No.1-State and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel on record for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The brief facts of the case are that there was a development agreement between the land lady-petitioner No.1 and M/s. Eureka Estates Pvt. Ltd.-respondent No.3 Company, represented by the complainant-respondent No.2 (LW.1) for constructing a commercial complex in the land of the petitioner No.1 and in pursuance of the same, the Company also paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- towards refundable deposit. The complainant has not delivered possession of 60% of the built up area falling to the share of the petitioner No.1 in the 5th floor as the petitioner No.1 has not executed and registered the power of attorney or a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.3 Company or its nominee in respect of 40% built up area, which falls to the share of the Company. It is alleged that the petitioners conspired together and refused to repay the amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs of refundable deposit lying with them and hatched a plan to claim possession of 60% area in the 5th floor falling to the share of petitioner No.1 including the common area in the 6th floor. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 demanded occupancy certificate, which cannot be obtained unless and until a certificate from the Fire Service Department is furnished to the GHMC Authorities and that without registering the area falling to the share of the respondent No.3-Company in 5th and 6th floors, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have tried to forcibly occupy the area which has fallen to their share. On 24.04.2017, the petitioners have tried to enter into the complex forcibly and barged into the 5th floor area and have threatened the site in-charge/LW.2 with dire consequences. On 27.04.2017 at about 20.00 hours, the petitioner No.2 along with his daughter-accused No.3 and son in law-accused No.4 (petitioner Nos.3 and 4 herein) accompanied with four other persons, have forcibly tried to enter into the premises and threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant is a Developer and he entered into Development Agreement with the petitioner No.1 to construct Ground + 5 floors in the property of the petitioner No.1 and that the building permission was obtained by the petitioner No.1, who is the owner of the property. As per the agreement, 60% of the developed premises would fall to the share of the owner, while 40% is agreed to be given to the developer. There was no dispute till the construction of 4th floor. Though the permission was obtained till 5th floor, the complainant has constructed 6th floor unauthorizedly. The petitioner No.1 has shown resistance towards construction of 6th floor and thus, has filed a suit for injunction. He further submitted that the complainant gave a complaint again