HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.4897 of 2013 Date: 24-7-2014 Between B.Haribabu … Petitioner/ Accused No.1 and The State through P.S. Miyapur, Cyberabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent R.Chandra Sheker Reddy … Respondent/
De facto Complainant
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.4897 of 2013 Order:
First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.165 of 2013 on the file of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad is sought to be quashed by the petitioner. The petitioner figured as accused No.1 in the case.
The complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent.
On 15-3-1990, the 2nd respondent allegedly entered into an agreement of sale in respect of properties from Ravi Kumar Yadav. Ravi Kumar Yadav, in his turn, allegedly purchased the same under an agreement of sale on 07-10-1989, claiming that Ravi Kumar Yadav acquired possession under an agreement of sale.
He claimed that he passed on the possession to the 2nd respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agreement of sale in favour of Ravi Kumar Yadav dated 07-10-1989 as well as the agreement of sale in favour of the 2nd respondent dated 15-3-1990 were not properly stamped. He contended that the agreements of sale have no value as every agreement of sale coupled with possession is compulsorily registerable and that when proper stamp duty is not paid, the documents cannot be looked into. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, however, contended that the 2nd respondent paid stamp duty and penalty before the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in O.S.No.1763 of 2012.
3. Be it noted that the 2nd respondent filed O.S.No.1763 of 2012 on 01-10-2012 against the petitioner seeking perpetual injunction. He obtained
ex parte ad interim injunction. The petitioner filed
a petition to vacate the ad interim injunction which petition is pending disposal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner filed counter in the temporary injunction petition of the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent filed private complaint on 22-3-2013. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent was referred to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and was registered as FIR in Crime No.165 of 2013 by Miyapur Police Station under Sections 420, 468, 471, 447, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil litigation is pending between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent wherein the title and the possession of the 2nd respondent are in dispute.
He also submitted that under law, the agreement holders do not acquire title and contended that the complaint that the petitioner committed various offences under the Indian Penal Code is unjustified and is not sustainable.
5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the 2nd respondent indeed filed the suit before the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in O.S.No.1763 of 2012 and that after filing of the same, the petitioner fabricated various documents. He also contended that falsely claiming that he has been in possession of the property, the petitioner obtained telephone connection, electricity identity card and cell phone at the address of the property owned by the 2nd respondent. He further alleged that the petitioner has engaged hooligans to threaten the 2nd respondent and distract him from enjoying possession over the disputed property.
He submitted that the petitioner is a Central Government employee with considerable power and that the petitioner is trying to cover up his criminal activity in the guise of civil lis.
6. The petitioner is described to be an employee in BSNL. It is not stated as to the exact calling of the petitioner. At any rate, merely because the petitioner is an employee of BSNL, I cannot conclude that the petitioner is such an influential person as to hoodwick the 2nd respondent. At the same time, I cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is purely a civil dispute and that criminal complaint is not maintainable. Criminal lis as well as civil claims can lie simultaneously at one and the same time. Merely because the 2nd respondent laid a civil suit seeking for perpetual injunction, the 2nd respondent is not debarred from filing a criminal complaint against the petitioner.
7. The 2nd respondent made categorical allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner has been interfering with his possession and also has created false documents, cheated him and also attacked him.
Thus, prima facie the offences are made out at this stage. Complete investigation may alone bring out truth in the rival contentions. I therefore consider that this is not the stage where the investigation can be scuttled. It would be appropriate to permit Police to proceed with the investigation. However, where the petitioner is a Central Government employee and where the petitioner claimed that he is the owner of the disputed property, it would be appropriate to direct Police to proceed with the investigation without arresting the petitioner if he had not been arrested so far.
8. Accordingly, this criminal petition is disposed of directing Police to proceed with the investigation of FIR in Crime No.165 of 2013 on the file of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad; Police, however, are restrained from arresting the petitioner during the pendency of investigation. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G.SHANKAR, J.
24th July, 2014. Ak HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Criminal Petition No.4897 of 2013 24th July, 2014. (Ak)