Allowed

Uppu Ramaiah, Nalgonda District v. Brahmandlapally Santhosh Kumar, Nalgonda and Anr, Rep.by Pp.

Telangana HC13 Dec 2017CRLP/2051/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Article 226. The court observed that the petitioner, as the second accused (A2), was not a party to the alleged fraudulent agreement of sale for a property transaction involving mortgage and lack of ownership. The court held that no criminal intention could be attributed to him.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.320 of 2010 against the petitioner are quashed.

Uppu Ramaiah, Nalgonda District Vs Brahmandlapally… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI

¶2

CRI MI NAL PETI TI ON No.2 0 5 1 of 2 0 1 1

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This petition is filed seeking for quashment of the proceedings against the petitioner, who is A2 in Crime No.320 of 2010 on the file of Suryapet Police Station, Nalgonda District. The offences alleged are under Sections 193, 209, 406, 418 and 420 IPC.

¶5

Heard the counsel for the petitioner; the Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2; and the counsel appearing for respondent No.1.

¶6

The facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner, who is A1 in the above Crime, and the de facto complainant/ R1 have entered into an agreement of sale in respect of a property at Suryapet Town. The de facto complainant along with others paid the entire sale consideration to A1. Now the grievance of the de facto complainant is that in spite of repeated requests, accused have not come forward to execute the sale deed.

¶7

The defence of the petitioner/ A2 is two fold. One is that he is not the owner of the land under the agreement of sale and the second is that declining the execution of the sale deed is on the ground that the said land is under mortgage.

¶8

In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the offence. Moreover, the petitioner/ A2 is not a party to

¶9

¶10

the agreement of sale. The petitioner cannot be brought to book for the alleged offences. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in the above crime would only result in abuse of process of law.

¶11

With the above observations, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.320 of 2010 on the file of Suryapet Police Station, Nalgonda District, against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court shall not have any effect on the proceedings before the civil court.

¶12

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

¶13

shall stand closed.

¶14

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
T. RAJANI , J
December 13, 2017
LMV

Uppu Ramaiah, Nalgonda District v. Brahmandlapally Santhosh Kumar, Nalgonda and Anr, Rep.by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uppu Ramaiah, Nalgonda District v. Brahmandlapally Santhosh Kumar, Nalgonda and Anr, Rep.by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kolla Srinivas and 12 Others Vs State of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P and 2 Others

The Apsrtc, and Another Vs S. Indira and 3 Others

K. Lakshmaiah Chowdary, Guntur Dist. Vs the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P., Hyderabad, and Anr.

Sapan Sharma, and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Yeddula Madhusudhana Reddy, and Another, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and 2 Others

Md.Asad , Fazulu Rahaman , Mohd. Asadoor Rahman, Warangal Vs the State of Ap.,through Sho, Ps.,Matwada, Warangal and 5 Otrs