KUSUMA LOKANADHAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal petition is filed by the sole accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing or proceedings in CC No.70 of 2011 on the file of 1 Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. A charge -sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE allegations in the charge -sheet are act under: - The 2nd respondent herein eking out his livelihood by running a jewellery shop in the name and style of Pashikanti Rajaiah & Sons Gold and Silver Merchant. There were three mulgies on the road side and the father of the accused and his two brothers got one mulgi each. In the year 1978, the respondent herein took a mulgi bearing No.8 -11 -34/3 admeasuring 33 Sq.yards on rent of Rs.500/ - per month. Out of the said 33 Sq.yards, the accused along with late Kusuma Janardhan and Kusuma Keshavender were having their share of 11 Sq.yards each. Later Kusuma Janardhan died. The legal heirs of Kusuma Janardhan approached the 2nd respondent (LW1) and sold away their share of 11 Sq.yards under a registered Sale Deed No.2369 of 2001 dated 29.12.2001. Another brother Kusuma Kesavanandham obtained a loan of Rs.2,25,000/ - from the wife of LW1 and failed to repay the said amount which made the wife of LW1 to file OS No.277 of 2000. The said suit was decreed on 14.10.2003 and E.P. filed for execution of the said decree is pending. As LW1 purchased the share of Janardhan and also filed E.P. for share of Kesavanandham, the accused approached LWs.1 and 2 and decided to sell his share of mulgi for a total consideration of Rs.9,00,000/ -. LW1 agreed to purchase the share of mulgi in the presence of LWs.3 to 7 and paid Rs.4,51,000/ - as advance on 7.7.2007. An agreement of sale came to be executed on the said date. The accused promised to register the property within a period of two months. Though the respondent was ready to pay the said amount after completion of two months, the accused was procrastinating the registration of sale deed on one pretext or the other. The averments in the charge -sheet would disclose that on 12.10.2007 the accused is alleged to have gifted the said property to his sons and also got the said property registered through his mother Kusuma Bhulakshmi. On 28.6.2010 in the afternoon the accused approached LW1, scolded him in filthy language, tried to beat him stating that he should not be pressurised to receive the balance of sale consideration and also for registration of the property in the name of LW1. Immediately thereafter LW1 went to the shop of his brother which was situated on the other side of the road and narrated about the incident to him. The accused is alleged to have come over to the shop of the brother of the respondent and not only abused the respondent in filthy language and beat him with hands indiscriminately. The said incident was witnessed by LWs.3 to 7. Basing on these allegations, the present case came to be registered.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and as such the said petition is liable to be dismissed on the said ground alone. According to him on 20.8.2008 a representation was made before this Court that charges were not framed till that date and in view of the said representation, this Court granted stay of all further proceedings. The Counsel for the respondent submits that the said representation made before this Court is absolutely false as charges were framed on 28.5.2012 itself and as such the present application has to be rejected on the said ground alone. He would further contend that time cannot be the essence of contract insofar as the filing of a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Further, the suit for specific performance is being filed making averments which are necessary for the relief in the said suit and it is not necessary for the petitioner to make averments constituting the offences punishable under Sections 420 or 323 of I.P.C. He submits that mere pendency of the suit cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.