Dismissed

Ananthula Laxmi and another v. The State of Telengana and another

Telangana HC6 Jul 2022CRLP/128/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings alleging cheating. The court held that the allegations involving land survey discrepancies and financial disputes raised triable issues that required a full-fledged trial.

What did the court decide?

The present Criminal Petition is accorded accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

Ananthula Laxmi and another Vs The State of Telengana… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

\ \

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 128 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Ananthula Laxmir, S/o. Yadaiah, Aged 44 Years, Occ Housewife, Caste Goud, Rl/o. H.No. 4-10-253, Sri Nagar Colony, Opp Small Church, Nalgonda Town, Telangana State

¶9

Ananthula yadaiah, S/o. lingaiah, Aged 46 Years, Occ RMP Doctor, Caste Goud, R/o. H.No. 4-10-253, Sri Nagar Colony, Opp Small Church, Nalgonda Town, Telangana State

¶10

...PETITIONERv(A-1 & A-2)

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telengana and another, Represented by lts Public Prosecutor High Court at Hyderabad.

¶13

Smt. Sushmitha, W/o. Srinivas Reddy , Aged 38 years, Occ House wife, Rl/o Plot No. 203, Chinthalkunta Check Post, L.B Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/De Facto COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to Quash the C.C No. 175412021 dated 24.07.2021 on the file of Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nalgonda and allow the application filed by the petitioners.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in C.C No. 175412021 on the file Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nalgonda including personal appearance of the petitioners/ accused pending disposal of the Criminal Petition.

¶18

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IION'BLE SRI .Itrsl'lCI K. L;\KSHN'lAN

¶21

CRIMINAL PE-rlTlON No.l 2lt Or' 2022

¶22

OITDER:

¶23

-fhe present Crinrinal Petition is tllcd under Section - 482 olthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. to quash thc proceedings in Cl.C.

¶24

No. 1754 of 2021 on the file ol the Judicial Masistrate of First Class at Nalgonda

¶25

The petitioners herein are arraigr.red as accused Nos. I and 2

¶26

in the said C.C. The offences alleged against them are under Sections

¶27

420 and 506 of IPC.

¶28

tleard Mr.^'l'. Srujan Kunral Rcrldr', lcarned counscl lbr tl'rc petitioners and Iearned Assistant [)ublic [)rosecutor appcaring on behalf of respondent No.1 - Statc. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2 - deJacto complainant.

¶29

The contents of thc charge sheel would reveal that respondent No.2 herein had bought 324.44 square yards of commercial - cum - residential plot in Survcy No.522lt-., situated at Mamillagudem outskirts, Nalgonda Mandal and [)istrict fiorr accuscd No. I for an amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees l-en Lakl.rs and Fifty Thousand Only) in the year 2012.^'l'wo years thereaficr, when she

¶30

Li I ( I t, ,' t-)t,'1 lotl

¶31

approachcd aciusecl No.l to sell her aloresaid nrentioncd plot lbr which accused No.l infbrmed her that both the plots rvere cornbincd and sell it a"r,a,-' and in the said process two years passed away. 1'hen, responderrt No.l had decided to construct a new house over her plot At that tirne, one Mr. Narasimha obstructed her stating that the plot belongs to hinr as it is located in Survey No.76 cornes under Kothapalli Revcnuc Village. Alter obtaining survey report, he has constructed a shop over the said plot. After knowing that the petitioners herein have cheated her, respondent No.2 and her husband, LW.2, approached the petitioners with request to return mone1, or plot. The petitioners dragged the matter on the pretext of repayment of the rlloney as per th(r rnarket value and they have not rnade pavment. Thus, the petitioners herein have cornmitted the aforesaid oflences.

¶32

Mr.^'f. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel lor the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners herein were falsely implicated in the above case with an intention to harass them lbr monetary bcnefits. He would submit that the petitioners are no \'ay concemed with the aforesaid case. The cornplaint lodged by respondent No.2 lacks the ingredients of the albresaid ofl'enccs. l'he

¶33

KL^I (-rl I) \o ll8,,r l0ll

¶34

Investigating Olficcr had not conductcd the invcstigation properl-v and laid the charge sheet. There u,as a delay o1'l0 ycars in lodging the comp la int.

¶35

i) Learned counsel would lur-thcr subnrit that respondent No.2 instead of lodging the complaint against Mr. Narsimha, who obstructed her and constructed a shop ovcr her plot. Iodged the complaint against the petitioners herein which is nothing but harassing them. Further, there are no allegations in the compliant against petitioner No.2 still the lnvestigating Officer laid the charge sheet against him.

¶36

ii) Leamed counsel would also submit that petitioner No.l had purchased the land in Survey No.522lE to an extent olAc.0.08 guntas lrom its original owner vide registered sale deed bearing document No.2784 of 2012, dated 21.02.2012. Out olthe said extent, an cxtent of 324.44 square yards was sold to rcspondent No.2 herein vide registered Agreement ol Sale - cur.rl - Genelal Power of Attorney bearing document No.8559 of 2012 dated 07.06.2012 and remaining extent to different persons. Thus, there was no cheating at^{all on the} part of petitioner No. I as atleged in the conrplaint as well as charge

¶37

¶38

-l

¶39

(t . I ( r P \0 llS,\l lrrl'

¶40

sheet. Further, respordcnt No.2 ought to have approached thc Civil Court fbr recoverv of possession lrom Mr. Narasimlia. Respondent No.2 herein dc'nranded the petitioners to pay money illegally and having rvailcd fbr two years, lodged the complaint against the oetitioners with false allegations. It is purely a civil dispute and the same was convefted into criminal nature.

¶41

iii) With the aloresaid submissions, leamed counsel sougl.rt to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in the aforesaid C.C

¶42

On the other hand. Ieamed Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioncrs herein and the same are triable issues which have 1o be tried and decided by the Court below after lull-fledged trial According to him, the Investigating Olficer having recorded the statements of the witnesses and on consideration of the same onlv filed the charge sheet. Since there were no allegations against accused No.3 and since none of the witnesses spoke against him, the Investigatirrg Officer deleted the narne of accused No.3. [n view of the same, he sought to dismiss the present petition.

¶43

¶44

LL_.l Crl t' No 128 ol l0ll

¶45

l. Perusal of the record would reveal that it is no doubt truc that petitioner No. I had purchased the larrd to an extent ol Ac.0-08 guntas ln Survey No.522lE, situated at Mamillagudem Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, vide a registered sale deed bearing document No.2784 of 2012, dated 2l .02.2012. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, out of the said extent ol Ac.0.08 guntas ot' land, petitioner No. I had sold an extent 324.44 square yards in the very same survey number to respondent No.2 herein under a registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Atlomey (with possession) bearing document No.8559 of 2012, dated 07.06.2012. The recitals of the said document would disclose that respondent No.2 herein had purchased the said plot for a total sale consideration ol Rs.2,92,000/-, whereas, in the complaint and the charge sheet, it is mentioned that respondent No.2 had purchased the subject plot lor a total consideration of Rs. 10,50,000/-.

¶46

In the charge sheet, it is specifically mentioned that 1,W.9, Investigating Officer, requested Sub-Registrar Office, Nalgonda to lurnish ownership particulars of the land documents i.e., 2784 ol 20 l2 and 8559 of 2012 lor the purpose ol'investigation. 1.W.9 got certified

¶47

¶48

til_..1 Crl I'^Nr-r l2R ol20ll

¶49

copies of the said docunlcnts and his inquiry revealed that there is no land in Survel No.522lE. Thus. there are triable issucs, which have to be decidcd onl1,'atter lull-fledged trial, but not in a petition filed under Section - 481 of'the Cr.P.C

¶50

The complaint as well as the charge sheet would reveal that tn the docurnent undcr which lcspondent No.2 had purchased the subject plot, it is rnentioned that the subject plot is located in Survey No.522lll of Ma.imillagudem Village of Nalgonda lvlandal and District, whercas one Mr. Narasirnha obstructed respondent No.2 stating that thc subject plot bclongs to him and that it is located in Survey No.76 of Kothapalli Revenue Village. Even, the Mandal Surveyor lrad conducted the survey and gave report to [rim. No such survev reporl is filed belorc this Court. [t is also a triable issue as to whether the subject plot comes in Survey No.522lE olMamillagudem Village or irr Survey No.76 of Kothapalli Revenue Village, which can be dccided only after full-flcdged trial, but not in a petition under Section - 482 olthe Cr.P.C. before this Court, for the simple reason no such survev report is placcd before this Court either by the petitioners herein or the prosecution so as to come to a conclusion.

¶51

¶52

¶53

\ 1.,If \LrII:.I-l ,I'

¶54

As stated abovE-. ;trimu .f ucie, there are specific ailegeriorrs

¶55

aqainst the petitioners herein rvhich are triable in nature and thus, the

¶56

present peiitioir is^,1evoid cil' merits and ti)c :ianrc. liable to be ciisrnisscci.

¶57

i l.^-l'he plcsent Crinrir,al i)ctitioir is accoldiitai.T disrnisscii

¶58

As a secltrel, the misceillncr)us l)ctitions. it any- ltcnCing in the

¶59

Criminal Pctition shall stand closed.

¶60

//TRUE COPY//

¶61

SD/. B.SAWAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR eD

¶62

SECTION OFFICER

¶63

To,

¶64

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Nalgonda, Nalgond Dist.

¶65

The Station House Officer, P.S. Nalgonda ltown, Nalgonda Dist.

¶66

One CC to SRl. f SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

¶67

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶68

Two CD Copies.

¶69

One Spare Copy.

$i(

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0610712022

ORDER

l trr:
a,-
:.
o
07 STP ?W

¶76

CRLP.No.128 of 2022

¶77

DISMISS!NG THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶78

WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

e']'-,-'
{

Ananthula Laxmi and another v. The State of Telengana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananthula Laxmi and another v. The State of Telengana and another

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

N.Venkateswara Rao and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s Suchir India Infratech Limited Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/s R3 Capital (Partnership Firm)

M/s. Raine Industries and Engineering Private Limited Vs M/s. National Ventures Private Limited and Another

Kondra Chandraiah and 4 Others Vs R D Madhuri

Vankudoth Kista and 14 Others Vs Mr.Anand Reddy and Another

Mohammed Jeelani Vs Sri. P. Venatrama Reddy, I.A.S