G.V.RAMAKRISHNA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is accused No.1, in C.C.No.767 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above C.C. A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 and 506 of I.P.C.

(2.) The facts which led to filing of the present Criminal Petition are that on 16.02.2018 at 1.00 p.m., the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner/A1 and accused No.2 approached the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant stating that they are the owners and pattedars of land admeasuring Ac.8.20 gts., which is situated in Sy.No.46/2, Ismailkhanguda, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District and they took the responsibility of other land owners ie., (1) G.Balatirupura Sundari Devi (Ac.4.00 gts.), (2) G.Uma Maheswar Rao (Ac.1.20 gts.), (3) G.Sathyanarayana (Ac.1.00 gt.), and (4) G.V.Ramakrishna Rao (Ac.2.00 gts.) which is total admeasuring Ac.8.20 gts. The petitioner/A1 and accused No.2 declared themselves to be the owners of the said land and agreed to sell the same to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant at the rate of Rs.90,00,000/- per acre and received a sum of Rs.24,50,000/- from the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant as part of sale consideration. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner/A1 and A2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 22.03.2017 as there is no approach road for the said land. As per the said Memorandum of Understanding, they were supposed to provide to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant the required documents for Zone Conversion and also to obtain NOC from the Government for sale and the sale transaction is to be completed after the Zone Conversion. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant approached the neighbouring land owners and arranged the land which is required for the passage road of 30 feet to the said land ie., 6,650 square yards by spending Rs.1.30 Crores. The 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant also submitted the application to HMDA for the Zone Conversion and paid the challan of Rs.3,00,000/- on the name of the petitioner/A1 and RTGS was made through Cheque No.72998559, Vijaya Bank, Dammaiguda Branch in favour of the Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad, dated 04.04.2017. The said application is pending as the petitioner/A1 and A2 failed to comply with the terms and conditions of HMDA. On the enquiries made by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, he came to know that the above said land is the Government land ie., Laoni patta and not the owner patta of the 1st petitioner/A1 and A2. The said fact is proved by virtue of the pahanies, as such the petitioner/ A1 and A2 have cheated the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and made him to part with huge amount of money. Believing the words of the petitioner/A1 and A2, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant had invested Rs.2.00 Crores for developing the said land. Thus, the petitioner/A1 and A2 cheated the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and criminally intimidated him. Basing on the said complaint, the Police, Ghatkesar, Rachakonda, registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 and 506 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.767 of 2019 and the same is pending before the IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

(3.) Heard Sri T.Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner/A1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/ State and Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for Sru Govardhan Reddy Joundla, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.