Allowed

N. Manohar Reddy v. Syed Fhazil

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022CRLP/154/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings instituted against an accused for offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The court held the dispute to be purely civil in nature regarding a property sale agreement not directly involving the petitioner, dismissing criminal liability.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.6971 of 2019 are quashed.

N. Manohar Reddy Vs Syed Fhazil — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR, JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 154 OF 2o2o

¶7

Between:

¶8

N-. Manohar Reddy, S_/o N. Ramachandra Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ: Business, Urty square Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 312, 3td Floor, Royal Corner KH Road. uangatore_560 027. ...pETlTloilEFyACCUSED No. 1

¶9

AND

¶10

t 9y"Q Fhazil, S/o Late. Ameer Jan Aged 60 years, Occ: Business Ryo. 10_.1_ 74, Srinivasanagar Colony Lingoliguda, Sarbornagar, Ranga Reaay-Disi.

¶11

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶12

State of relangana, Rep. by its^pubric prosecutor High court of Judicature at nyoeraoao. ...RESPONDENT

¶13

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 proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 6gt1 ;f 2019. on the file of the Learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

¶14

l.A NO: 2OF 2020

¶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 stay of all further proceedings, including execution oJ Non-Bailable - warrants against the petitioner, pursuant to c.c.No.6971 of 2019, on the file of the Learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the petition for quashing.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M/s. INDUS LAW FIRM, Advocate for the petitioners and the public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri B. SUBHASH, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

¶19

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No.154 of 2O2O

¶21

ORDER r

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner - accused No.1 to quash the proccedings in C.C.No.697I of 2079 pending on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberab:rd :rt L.B.Nagar, against him and the cognizance of which was tarken for the offences under Sections 420, 5O6 of the Indian Pernal Clode.

¶23

The facts in brief as can be gathered from the record available before this Court are as under:

¶24

(a) Respondent No.7-de facto complainant has agreed to purchase Plot Nos"278, 279,28O artd 281 admeasuring 844.44 square yards, situated in Sy.No.7O, NRI's First City, Sector-I, Jalpalli Village by paying total consideration of Rs.42,15,288/to accused No.2 and accordingly an agreement of sale was executed to that extent by the petitioner-accused No.l on the status of General Power of Attorney Holder of vendors. However, the petitioner-accused No.l and accused No.2 stated to have been' postponing to execute register sale deed in favour of

¶25

Dr.DNR. J Crl.P.No.l54 of 2020

¶26

¶27

respondent No. l-de facto complainant in spite of number of requests made by respondent No.l-de facto complasnant over phone and ultimately refused to execute the sa-le deed. Thus, respondent No.1-de facto compla)nant lodged complaint before the Police, Pahadisharief Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Crime No. 118 of 2O 18 for the offences under Sections 42O, 506 of Indian Penal Code, and after completion of investigation by examining witnesses, collecting documents including the copy of the agreement of sale dated 74.09 .2072 executed by accused No.2 in favoiur of respondent No.2-de facto compiainant, charge-sheet has been filed alleging that petitioner and accused No.2 have committed offences punishable under Sections 42O, 506 of I.P.C.

¶28

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused No. t has filed this petition seeking quashment of proceedings on the grounds that the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are purely civil in nature and the aggrement of sale was executed by accused No.2 and petitioner-accused No. 1 is not a part5r to it and he has not committed any offence.

¶29

Dr.DNIl, J Crl.P-t\o.154 of 2020

¶30

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 AS well as learned Assistant hrblic Prosecutor, who represents respondent No.2 State. Perused the record.

¶32

Now the point lor determination is:

¶33

"Whether the proceedings against petitioneraccused No. 1 in C.C.No.6971 of 2Ol9 pending on the tile of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, can be quashed under Sectioo 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?"

¶34

Accused No.2 stated to be working as Project Director with the petitioner-accused No. i. He has agreed to sell Plot Nos.27B, 279 and 281 total admeasuring 844.44 square yards, situated in Sy.No.7O, NRI's First City Sector-I under the limits of Jalpally Village to respondent No.l-de faclo complainant. Accused No.2 has taken amount of Rs.42,15,288/- and he also executed agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.- de facto complainant on 14.O9.2012

¶35

According to the petitioner-accused No. 1, he does not know about the transaction between accused No.2 and respondent No.1-de facto complainant. It is also submittecl that I i I

¶36

¶37

Dr.DNR, J Crl.P.No.I54 of 2020

¶38

{

¶39

I i

¶40

respondent No.l-de facto complainant has never approached the petitioner-accused No.l seeking execution of registered sale deed. Finally, it is submitted that when the petitioner-accused No.l rea-lized that accused No.2 being the Project Director has executed agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.I-de facto complainant by taking Rs.42,15,288/- and agreed to register Plot Nos.278,279 and 2aL, petitioner-accused No.1 has undertook to resolve the dispute and accordingly, petitioneraccused No.1 in the capacity of General Power of Attorney Holder of the original owners has executed sale deed in favour of respondent No.l-de facto complainant in respect of Plot Nos.278, 279 and28l.

¶41

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also submitted that respondent No.l-de facto complainant has also furnished a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Pahadisharief Police Station, Rachakonda, Hyderabad, stating that the petitioneraccused No.1 has executed registered sale deed in his favour in respect Plots, which he has agreed to purchase.

¶42

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.l-de focto complainant has filed the

¶43

Dr.DN R, J C .P.,\o.l 34 of 2020

¶44

I I

¶45

¶46

complaint falsely in order to put pressure on the petitioneraccused No. 1.

¶47

Considering the circumstances, the dispute between the petitioner-accused No.1 and respondent No.1_de facto complainant purely civil nature. In case, if the sale deed has not been executed, the remedy available for respondent No. 1_ de facto complainant is to approach the Civil Court and file suit for specific performance of agreement of sale. Further, both the sides have reported about the execution of sale deed. Admittedly, petitioner-accused No. 1 is not a party to the agreement of sale executed by Accused No.2 in favour of d.e facto complainant.

¶48

I I . Considering the circumstances explained above, the petitioner-accused No.l has made out a case. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings that are pending against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.6971 of 2019, on the file of the learned V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, are hereby quashed.

¶49

Dr.DNR, J Crl-P.No.l54 of 2020

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shali stand closed. Sd/. M. MANJULA \ DEPUTYREGISTRAR.lll //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The V Additional Metropolitan^{Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad} 2. The Station House Officer,^{PahadishariefPolice Station,Pahadisharied} Hyderabad. 3. Two CC's to the Public^{Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana,at} Hyderabad^(OUT). 4. One CC to M/s. lndus^{Law Firm Advocate} [OPUC] 5. One CC to^{B. SubashAdvocate} [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies DL {d

HIGH COURT

Dr. DNR,J

DATED:2610912022

ORDER

CRLP.No.154 of 2020

ALLOWI\IG THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶60

4,
/
s
)

¶61

N. Manohar Reddy v. Syed Fhazil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Manohar Reddy v. Syed Fhazil

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

Kavvampally Durgaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Koppula Vijay Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Pannala Govardhan Reddy Vs Smt. B.Laxmi

The State of Telangana Vs Vangalpudi Vijaya Kumar

Rjeshwariraman Vs State of Telangana

Mr.Puneeth Agarwal and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and another