HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.7302 of 2014
Date: 24.07.2014 Between:
P. Anjaneyulu Gupta, and another. .. Petitioners/ A.1 & A.2 AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad, and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR
Criminal Petition No.7302 of 2014
ORDER:
The petitioners are A.1 & A.2 in C.C.No.325 of 2014 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. They seek for the quashment of the charge sheet so far as they are concerned.
2. The second respondent is the de facto complainant. He resisted the attempt of the petitioners. One Mallisetty Bhanu Kiran @ Bhanu is the prime accused in the murder of Maddelacheru Surendranath Reddy @ Suri. The said Mallisetty Bhanu Kiran @ Bhanu is A.3 in the present case.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A.1 & A.2 engaged A.3 and others to cheat and threaten the de facto complainant. After due investigation, police laid the charge sheet. The petitioners contended that no case is made out against them and that the charge sheet is liable to be quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned. The second respondent contended that it is too early to conclude that the allegations are false and that this is not a fit case for the quashment of the main case. The second respondent lodged a complaint stating that he along with one Madhavaram Abhilash sold land admeasuring Ac.3.38 guntas constituting part of Survey No.69, Miyapur to A.1 & A.2 for a sum of Rs.7.50 crores. Sale deeds were registered in the names of A.1 & A.2 on 23.04.2010 on the understanding that A.1 & A.2 would pay Rs.1.50 crores at the time of the registration of the sale deeds and would pay the balance of Rs.6 crores within 15 days from the date of registration.
4. The second respondent further alleged that A.1 & A.2, however, paid Rs.10 lakhs only to the second respondent and Rs.8 lakhs to Madhavaram Abhilash on the date of registration of the sale deeds and failed to pay the balance of Rs.7.32 crores despite several requests/ demands. When the second respondent pressurized A.1 & A.2 to pay the balance, A.1 & A.2 allegedly took the support of A.3 to A.5 and threatened the second respondent with dire consequences. It is claimed that A.1 & A.2 thus committed criminal breach of trust, cheating and criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC. As already noticed, after due investigation, police laid charge sheet.
5. The learned counsel for the second respondent contended that A.1 & A.2 have been indulging in extreme criminal activity by engaging notorious persons like A.3. He further submitted that when police laid charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 after due investigation, there was no abuse of process of the Court to quash the charge sheet on the grounds enumerated in the State of Haryana v. Ch.
[1]
Bhajan Lal . He also contended that the petitioners have
an alternative remedy of seeking for discharge.
The learned counsel for the second respondent placed reliance upon Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri
[2]
Satyanarayana Reddy where it was observed that when
alternative remedy is available, it would be unjust to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. He submitted that this petition, therefore, is not maintainable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent and Abhilash did not own Ac.3.38 guntas in Survey No.69 and that the property was owned by one Mohammed and Mohammed Mahaboob (LWs.4 & 5) in C.C.No.325 of 2014 and that the second respondent and Abhilash were holders of agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney to purchase the same.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the second respondent and other persons offered the same to the petitioners/A.1 & A.2 for Rs.7.50 crores. He drew my attention to the fact that the Sub-Registrar did not initially register the sale deeds since sufficient stamp duty was not paid for the sale deeds. After deficit stamp duty was paid, the sale deeds were released. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the sale deeds recited that the entire sale consideration was paid. His contention is that lodging of the charge sheet is prima facie unbelievable where the sale deeds recite that the entire sale consideration was received by the second respondent and the other vendor. He submitted that all link documents had been handed over to A.1 & A.2.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is unnatural for the second respondent and other vendor to recite in the sale deed that the entire sale consideration was received and moreover, to hand over all the link documents to the vendees if amounts are due from the vendees; all the more so, where the amounts paid are Rs.18 lakhs only and the amounts due are Rs.7.32 crores. It is his submission that the complicity of A.3 was subsequently brought into the case to prejudice the mind of the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Mohd. Mahaboob and K.B. Venkatesh, who sold the properties to the second respondent and another, were guilty of undervaluing the documents.
10. Be that as it may, the allegation in gist is that the petitioners purchased Ac.3.38 guntas from the second respondent and another and promising to pay the sale consideration, obtained registered sale deeds and have subsequently failed to pay the sale consideration.
It is the further case that when the second respondent and the other vendor demanded A.1 & A.2 for the balance of the sale consideration, A.1 & A.2 engaged the services of A.3 and others to threaten and intimidate the two vendors. Thus, from the allegations in the complaint as well as from the charge sheet, prima facie case is made out against A.1 & A.2.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners pressed into service the sale deeds, the recitals in the sale deeds and the link documents to unsettle the case of the second respondent. I am afraid that these questions are a matter of evidence, which cannot be thrashed out in a quash petition. In view of prima facie case having been made out against the petitioners from the complaint as well as from the charge sheet, I consider that this petition deserves to be dismissed. No doubt, the petitioners are at liberty to move the trial Court for discharge. In such an event, the trial Court shall dispose of such a petition, uninfluenced by any observations in this order.
12. So far as the present petition is concerned, I find the same to be devoid of merits. The same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
Dr. K.G. Shankar, J.
Date: 24.07.2014 Isn
[1] 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335
[2] (2011) 12 SCC 437