SAM ZAL BASTAWALA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal petition is filed by A1 and A2 under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the proceedings in CC No.650/2002 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, which was taken on file for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Originally, only the State represented by Public Prosecutor was made respondent Subsequently, respondents 2 to 7 were impleaded as respondents pursuant to an order dated 20.3.2009 passed in Crl. MP No.1434/2009.

(2.) THE allegations in the charge-sheet are as follows: The first petitioner, Sam Zal Bastawala, is the father of the second petitioner by name Sarosh Sam Bastawala. Both of them are alleged to have deceitfully collected lakhs of rupees under the cover of registered/unregistered agreements of sale in respect of land covered under S.Nos.218 and 220 of Lingampally near B.H.E.L., Ramachandrapuram by using forged and fabricated documents. A charge-sheet was filed in respect of three crimes registered against the accused. (1) Cr.No.92/2000 was registered on 16.5.2000 on the basis of a report given by respondents 2 to 4 for an offence under Section 420 IPC. According to them, the accused collected Rs.15 lakhs by entering into an agreement of sale dated 15.10.1998 showing photostat copies of certain documents and land acquisition gazette of the year 1961 in respect of the land covered by S.No.218. On enquiry by respondents 2 to 4, it came to light that the accused are not the owners of land in question and the said land was sold by the accused to three other parties. (2) The second case relates to Cr.No.98/2000 registered on the basis of a report given by respondents 5 and 6 herein against the accused which was registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is stated that the accused have collected Rs.10 lakhs under the cover of an agreement of sale in respect of Ac.1-20 in S.No.220 and 2000 sq.yards in S.No.218 of Ramachandrapuram. Their enquires revealed that the land belong to the Police Department and that the accused have sold the said land under a cover of registered and unregistered agreement and deeds in favour of Shravan Kumar Gupta; Surender Singh; Ram Babu; Ashok Goud and Papi Reddy. When the respondents 5 and 6 protested, the petitioners/accused issued a cheque for Rs.9 lakhs, which, when presented was dishonoured. (3) The third incident is in respect of Cr.No.102/2000 registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC on the basis of a report given by respondent No.7 herein. It is alleged that accused No.1, Sam Zal Bastawala deceitfully collected Rs.10 lakhs from him under the cover of registered/unregistered deeds dated 5.5.1999 and 6.5.1999 for sale of 2100 sq.yards of land in S.No.220/A. On protest, the cheque which was given by the accused, was dishonoured. The unofficial respondents herein also came to know that the accused sold the same land to various people and thus requested to take legal action.

(3.) THE petitioner No.2 appeared in person. The petitioner No.2 mainly contends that even accepting the allegations made in the charge-sheet to be true, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out as the issue involved is purely civil in nature. According to him, there was no inducement by the accused as the accused purchased the land after due verification of the records. It is further contended that the charge-sheet does not disclose any dishonest intention from inception. He would contend that the amount alleged to have been taken from the respondents was repaid and the same is borne out from the record. Taking shelter from the ratio laid down in Ruchi Agarwal v. Amit Kumar Agarwal, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 106 (SC) = (2005) 3 SCC 299, Mohd. Shamim v. Smt. Nahid Begum, 2005 (1) ALD (Crl.) 552 (SC) = AIR 2005 SC 757, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 591 (SC) = (2008) 9 SCC 677 and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, the petitioner No.2 strenuously contended that the proceedings cannot survive and the same have to be quashed as bank guarantee was invoked and entire amount was paid to the informants.