SAMREDDY KEETHI REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.2786 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before Balapur Police Station, Rachakonda on 20/2/2019 which is registered as FIR No.70 of 2019 dt.20/2/2019 for the alleged offences under Ss. 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC'). Petitioner No.1 is the wife of petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Survey No.343, admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.00 gts., situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal. In the year 2018, respondent No.2/de facto complainant approached the petitioners herein showing willingness to purchase a part of the land in Survey No.343 and petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 came to an agreement with mutually agreed terms and conditions. As per the terms and conditions, respondent No.2 claims to have paid a sum of Rs.20,00,000.00 in cash and another sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 vide cheque No.000059 dt.10/8/2018 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited as advance towards the sale consideration. Petitioner No.1, thereafter, executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession vide registered Document No.15583/2018 dt.18/9/2018 in favour of respondent No.2 to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts., in Survey No.343 situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal. Subsequently, the petitioners received a letter dt.18/9/2018 from M/s. Pride India Mansions Pvt., Ltd., stating that the advance amount of Rs.25,00,000.00 paid to the petitioners was to be adjusted towards the registration of the agreement vide Document No.15583/2018. It is submitted that at the request of respondent No.2, in good faith, petitioner No.1 has received only the cheque amount towards sale consideration and executed another AGPA vide Document No.16784/2018, dt.18/10/2018 in favour of respondent No.2 with respect to Ac.0.10 gts., of land situated at Balapur Village, Saroornagar Mandal and respondent No.2 was yet to pay the full sale consideration as agreed between the parties. It is submitted that Respondent No.2, being a real estate developer, had developed a sore eye over petitioner No.1's property and was trying to take over the petitioners' property without clearing the payment of the balance sale consideration. It is submitted that respondent No.2, with a mala fide intention to cause undue trouble, had approached the Balapur Police Station and filed a complaint on 20/2/2019 which is registered as FIR No.70 of 2019 against petitioners 1 and 2 for the alleged offences under Ss. 420 and 506 of IPC. It is submitted that thereafter, respondent No.2 has also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners vide O.S.No.528 of 2019 on 11/3/2019 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar which is pending consideration. Another suit, i.e., O.S.No.2888 of 2019 dt.7/11/2019 has also been filed on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar which is also pending consideration. It is submitted that in the plaint filed in O.S.No.2888 of 2019, respondent No.2 has himself accepted that they have to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000.00 to the petitioners herein and therefore, the averments in the complaint regarding Rs.20,00,000.00 as advance payment pending with the petitioners is contrary to record. It is further submitted that the petitioners were served with notices under Sec. 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short, 'CrPC') dt.10/4/2019 and the petitioners have submitted the entire set of documents pertaining to the above transaction to the police. It is further submitted that the police filed charge sheet in the month of April, 2019 without conducting any enquiry and without application of mind and pursuant to the charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance of the same. On the ground that the charge sheet is perverse and constitutes abuse of process of law, the present petition is filed under Sec. 482 of CrPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.2 is using the legal machinery as a tool against the petitioners and the contents of the complaint did not establish any basis for registering the case or pursuing the case under Ss. 420 and 506 of IPC. He submitted that in the suit filed by respondent No.2, the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000.00 was to be paid and therefore, the question of refunding of the advance amount of Rs.20,00,000.00 received by the petitioners does not arise. He submitted that the ingredients of Sec. 420 of IPC are not present in the present case and even the provision of Sec. 506 of IPC is not applicable. In support of his contention that the Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of CrPC, has to read in between lines and has a duty to look into the FIR more closely as the complainant would ensure that the FIR is well drafted, he placed reliance upon the following two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: (1) Mohammad Wajid and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 (2) Haji Iqbal alias Bala Vs. State of U.P. and others,2023 SCC OnLine SC 946 In support of other contention that the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that it would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indisputable facts and that the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused while invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of CrPC, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor,(2013) 3 SCC 330.