Hon'ble Justice Samudrala dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashment of an FIR under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC. The court held that although fraud regarding land title was alleged, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised at the threshold to quash the FIR.
Criminal Petition No.5249 of 2012 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA
GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5249 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioners 1 to 6/A.9 to A.14 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC along with others. It is alleged that A.8 to A.13 at the instance of A.14 entered into MOU with A.1 to A.7 for purchase of Ac.177.09 guntas of land for Rs.94,85,000/and that ultimately A.8 to A.13 obtained registered sale deeds from A.1 to A.7 for the said lands even though A.1 to A.7 had no title or possession for the said lands. It is contended by Senior Counsel for the petitioners that there is no element of cheating in this case and that it is only a question of title dispute for the lands purchased. Out of the said extent of land, land measuring Ac.61.08 guntas stand in the names of 12 persons as per registered documents, land measuring Ac.107.20 guntas stand in the names of 10 persons as per Section 38(E) Protected Tenancy Certificates and land measuring Ac.4.17 guntas
stand in the names of two persons as per ROR certificates. It is brought to notice of this Court that previously this Court declined to interfere in this matter and refused to entertain quash petition when A.1 to A.7 approached this Court. Though basically it is civil dispute regarding title, wider element of fraud is alleged to have been involved in obtaining sale deeds for Ac.177.09 guntas of land by A.8 to A.13 from A.1 to A.7. This appears to be a typical Rangareddy District real estate litigation in respect of lands situated around Hyderabad city. This is not a matter where this Court can exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash F.I.R. at its threshold.
Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
_______________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Dt.4th July 2012. PNV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in a dispute involving title and alleged fraud in land purchase.
Whether the allegations involve an element of cheating sufficient to warrant quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
Whether a civil title dispute widens to involve fraud impacting the judicial process.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners 1 to 6/A.9 to A.14
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
