M GANAPATHI RAJU Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is field to quash the proceedings in Cr.No. 31/2002 of Gajuvaka Police Station registered against the petitioner.

(2.) The criminal petition was admitted on 15-5-2002 and directed the 1st respondent not to take coercive steps against the petitioner. The facts of the case in brief, are as follows: It is stated that the substance of the complaint said to have been given by Dr. M. Ravinder Rao is that he purchased H.I.G.No. 502 plot admeasuring 520 sq.yds. at Agnampudi village under a registered sale deed dated 25-7-1986 and took possession of the same in the month of August, 1986 and the petitioner was the Secretary of Vijaya Lakshmi Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Visakhapatnam (for short the "society") and the Society sold the said plot to him and that as he is very busy person in his Hospital work he visited his site recently and found that a house was built in the land by Mr. Srinivasa Rao, LIC of Gajuwaka eight months back and that he came to know that the petitioner sold the same plot to the other party i.e., Mr. Srinivasa Rao and therefore he lodged the present complaint. It is also stated that it is revealed from the remand report that the petitioner did not sell the same plot of land purchased by the complainant to Mr. Srinivasa Rao and it further shows that ryot by name one Somu Naidu sold the land to Srinivasa Rao, who is working in the LIC office through one Murthy Raju. The remand report also states that the society was established in the year 1982 and obtained approval for lay out for 673 plots in an extent of Ac.98-00 of land and developed the lay out with roads and electricity facilities and that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Society at that time. It is further stated that a big lay out for 673 plots was approved and that the society sold its plots to its members and out of the said plots Dr. M. Ravinder Rao purchased plot HIG 502 through registered sale deed dated 25-7-1986 and he took possession of the land. The said plot was sold to him by the society which sold the other plots to other members. It is also stated that it is clear that from 1986 onwards the plot was in possession of Dr.M. Ravinder Rao and it was only eight months back Srinivasa Rao was said to have built the house in the land. For all these years, it is stated, there was never any complaint in respect of sale of the plots by Society. It is further stated that if any dispute arises with regard to the plot, his remedy is only to agitate the matter in accordance with Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the "Act"). But, however, instead of adopting to the procedure under the Act, Dr. M. Ravinder Rao with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner herein appeared to have lodged the present complaint.

(3.) Sri P.V. Rama Raju, learned counsel representing the petitioner had taken me through the material available on record and had submitted that even if the allegations are true on the face value none of the ingredients U/s. 420, IPC are satisfied. The learned counsel further contended that as per the allegations in the complaint, it is purely a civil dispute and unnecessarily the petitioner is being harassed. The learned counsel further maintained that even otherwise the remedy, if any, available to the complainant is to agitate the matter U/s 61 of the Act and he is not entitled to resort to criminal action of this nature. The learned counsel also submitted that the Society sold the land in question in the year 1986 and for over a period of 16 years there was no action at all for the alleged cheating and this itself shows that the present action is not a bona fide one. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Salauddin Owaisi v. DSP, CID, SDT, Hyderabad (APHCP and contended that in similar circumstances the Division Bench of this Court arrived at a conclusion that launching of prosecution against the petitioner under vaious provisions of the Indian Penal Code is nothing but gross abuse of the process of the Court apart from an exercise in futility.