ARUN MAMMEN Vs. KAMAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions have been filed to quash the private complaint in C.C. No. 936 of 2021 for the alleged offences under Ss. 406, 418, 420 and 120 (b) of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant and the first accused are the joint owners of the property being land measuring an extent of 2 acres and 4 cents comprised in Survey Nos. 46/2A1A1, 46/2A1A2, 46/2A1A3 and 46/2A1A4 in Mathur Village, Mathavaram; that they jointly developed the said property by constructing a warehouse; that since the complainant had certain financial difficulties it was decided that the first accused would help the complainant by providing financial assistance and the complainant would transfer his share in the above property to the first accused; that the first accused did not provide any financial assistance as promised by him and hence, the complainant dropped the idea of transferring his share in favour of the first accused; that while so, the first accused dishonestly, without the complainant's knowledge entered into a lease agreement with the accused 2 to 12 to unlawfully enrich himself; that the lessees, viz., accused 2 to 12, were aware of the fact that the property was jointly owned by the complainant and the first accused; that they in conspiracy with the first accused entered into the lease agreement in order to deprive the complainant of his 50% share in the rental income; that the actual rental income for the said property would be Rs.20,00,000.00 and the lessees unlawfully took the said property on a lesser rent of Rs.14,00,000.00 per month from the first accused; and that since the accused in conspiracy committed misappropriation and cheating of the funds of the complainant, they are liable for the offences under Sec. 120(b), 406, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 6154 of 2021 submitted that the petitioner earlier took the premises on lease from both the complainant and the first accused. However, they could not continue the lease after 2016 because of floods in the area and they had to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the first accused represented that he was the absolute owner of the property in question and produced an unregistered sale deed, which showed that the complainant had handed over possession to the first accused and had received sale consideration. Believing the representation to be true, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the first accused on 3/11/2018. The rent was fixed at Rs.17.25 per square feet. The petitioner had been paying rent regularly to the first accused for nearly 2 years. While so, they were shocked to receive a notice from the counsel for the complainant stating that the petitioner had unlawfully entered into a lease agreeement with the first accused knowing fully well that the complainant and the first accused are the joint owners of the property and thereby, denying the rent to be paid to the complainant. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there were exchange of notices thereafter and finally on 30/10/2020, they decided to vacate the premises in view of the dispute between the complainant and the first accused. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that even assuming that the petitioner had erroneously entered into a lease agreement with the first accused, the said act would not attract any of the offences alleged in the complaint. Admittedly, they had not deceived the complainant in any manner. Even assuming that the first accused had falsely claimed title over the property and executed lease in favour of the petitioners, it would not constitute any of the offences alleged. In any event, the complainant has not denied the unregistered sale deed executed by him, in which it is stated that the complainant handed over possession to the first accused. That apart, the first accused had paid consideration to the complainant for the same. The question as to whether this document is valid or not has to be adjudicated only before a Civil Court and prima facie if there is evidence to show that the petitioner had acted bonafide, they cannot be prosecuted for the offences. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner had acted bonafide by believing the first accused. That apart, on coming to know of the dispute, they had vacated the property immediately. All this would show that they were not involved in the alleged offences.