KONDI PRAMILA RANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 4 under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the Court to quash the FIR No.412 of 2023 dtd. 4/7/2023 of PS Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on the file of XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

(2.) The case of the defacto complainant is that he entered into an agreement of sale dtd. 13/9/2022 with petitioners with respect to subject property bearing No.8/3/318/6/3/34, admeasuring 200 sq. yard, situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad, Telangana for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,80,00,000.00 and he paid Rs.30,50,000.00 towards advance sale consideration. The defacto complainant arranged the balance sale consideration and approached the petitioners several times, but the petitioners/accused persons are postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and that petitioners are trying to dispossess the property to the third party for higher price and trying to show defacto complainant as defaulter and the petitioners are giving evasive replies and warned the defacto complainant by using abusive language and threatened her that they are not likely to get registration in her favour and thereby they lured defacto complainant to a tune of Rs.30,50,000.00 and caused wrongful loss. As such, she filed a private complaint on 15/3/2023 under Ss. 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. vide S/R No.909 of 2023 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad and the same was referred to P.S.Banjara Hills and was registered vide FIR No.412 of 2023 dtd. 4/7/2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420, 506 of IPC r/w Sec 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners herein is that the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are the lawful owners and peaceful possessors of the property bearing House No. 8/3/318/6/3/34, admeasuring 200 sq. yards, situated at Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad and with an effort to sell the same to the defacto complainant for their personal requirements they entered into the agreement on 13/9/2022. The wife of petitioner No.3 filed DVC No.270/2022 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on 14/9/2022 along with D.V.M.P.No. 342 of 2022 against petitioner Nos.1 and 3 and obtained ad-interim orders prohibiting the petitioner No.3 from alienating the subject property. That the order passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate was an exparte order and none of the petitioners were aware of the prohibitory order and Smt. Kondi Renuka through her counsel vide dtd. 15/9/2022 informed the office of Sub-Registrar about the ad interim prohibitory order in respect of subject property and requested to include the property into prohibited list. Accordingly, the above mentioned property was included into the prohibitory list and same is in the prohibited properties list as on the date and the petitioners/accused No.1 to 4 were unaware of the fact that it is included in the prohibited properties list and in the month of January, 2023 petitioner Nos.1 to 4 approached the office of Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills along with defacto complainant for execution of Sale Deed. However, the Sub-Registrar refused to receive the Sale Deed by stating that the property is in prohibited list as per the order dtd. 14/9/2022 in D.V.M.P.No.342/2022 in D.V.C.No.270 of 2022. The defacto complainant knowing very well about the facts and circumstances upon legal advice issued a legal notice on 23/1/2023 through her counsel to the petitioners/A1 to A4 and the entire notice is silent upon any malafide intention, mensrea to cheat the defacto complainant by accused persons herein. On 10/2/2023 the defacto complainant filed Specific Performance Suit bearing No. O.S.No.150 of 2023 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad which is in summons stage. While initiating the civil remedy by suppressing the facts defacto complainant lodged a police complaint, dtd. 24/1/2023 before P.S. Banjara Hills and thereafter lodged a private complaint. That in her police complaint and her private complaint defacto complainant has not whispered about initiation of civil proceedings.