Dismissed

Bhuthagadda Venkati, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC4 Nov 2013CRLP/12060/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 CrPC. Court found purchasing a property and immediately entering a sale agreement while a pending suit over ownership was concealed prima facie indicated intent to cheat the buyer. Bail denied.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. framing for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Bhuthagadda Venkati, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

Criminal Petition No. 12060 of 2013

¶3

Order:

¶4

This criminal petition, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 in Crime No. 243 of 2013 of Karimnagar I-Town Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420, 500 and 506 IPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

It is alleged that the petitioners, claiming that they have purchased the property from Golkonda Arun Jyothi under a registered sale deed dated 13.02.2013, entered into an agreement of sale to sell the property to the de facto complainant on 26.02.2013 and received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and another sum of Rs.16,50,000/- on 26.03.2013. Subsequently, she had seen a paper publication in Eenadu daily district edition dated 27.03.2013 published on behalf of one Kasturi Sattamma stating that she is the exclusive owner and possessor of the disputed property and that she filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in O.S. No.271 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against Golkonda Arun Jyothi @ German Rani.

¶7

It is not in dispute that a civil suit in O.S. No.271 of 2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, is filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the petitioners have obtained sale deed on 13.02.2013 and within two weeks they entered into an agreement of sale on 26.02.2013 with the de facto complainant. The fact that within a short period the petitioners

¶8

proposed to sell the property and the fact that the petitioners have not taken any action against Golkonda Arun Jyothi, prima facie, shows that only with a view to cheat the de facto complainant, suppressing the fact of pendency of the suit, the petitioners have entered into an agreement of sale with the de facto complainant. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners since it appears to be a clear case of cheating.

¶9

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶10

______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.

¶11

Date: 04.11.2013 Nsr

Bhuthagadda Venkati, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuthagadda Venkati, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha Vs The State of Ap.

Kondreddi Chandra Lekha Vs The State

Mohd Ilyas Khan Vs Syed Khaleelulla Khadry

P.Sravani Reddy, W/o.P.Sarath Reddy, Vs State of A.P. rep.

Lingam Tirumalesh, Vs The State of A.P.

Sanaga Ravindra Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh