Dismissed

Meesa Chalapathi Rao and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC12 Jul 2022CRLP/2399/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against petitioners accused of cheating and criminal intimidation arising from a disputed property sale. The court held that the transaction was civil in nature but criminal allegations warranted trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition for quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 663 of 2019 was dismissed.

Meesa Chalapathi Rao and another Vs The State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT, JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2399 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Meesa Chalapathi Rao, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Age. 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Bodulabanda Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶8

lVleesa Padmavathi, Wo.Chalapathi, Age. 45 years, Occ. House wife, Rl/o.Bodulabanda Village, Nelakondapally lt/andal, Khammam District.

¶9

...PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1 & 2

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶12

Shapashetti Venkata Sainadh, S/o..Rajagopala Rao (Late), 64 years, Occ. Rtd Employee, Rl/o. Bodulabanda Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶14

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 in C.C.No.663 of 2019 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court), Khammam for the alleged offence U/Sec.41 7, 42O, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 l.P.C.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶16

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.663 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate (Special Mobile Court). Khammam against the Petitioners/Accused No. 1 and 2 including their appearance, pending disposal of the above criminal petition.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.'1 and of Sri Rama Sharma Susarla, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHTLLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

CRIMINAL PETITION No a2 99 of 2021

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Projecting that the proceedings commenced against the petitioners through C.C.No.663 of 2079 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Khammam is unjustiliable and thereby, seeking to quash the said proceedings, the present Criminal petition is fi:ed.

¶23

Heard the submission of learned counsel for lhe petitioners, the learned Assistant public prosecutor who is representing respondent No.i and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that basing on a trivial issue, a false case was foisted against the petitioners and indeed, there exi sts a civil dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and the said civil dispute culminated into initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners and therefore, the said criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶25

¶26

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.2399 of 2O21

¶27

The submission of the learned Assistant public Prosecutor, in this regard, is that as per the investigation done, the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 412,42O,2g4(b) and 506 read with Section 34 IPC ald therefore, charge sheet is laid and thus, an order to quash the proceedings cannot be granted.

¶28

The contention of the learned counsel for the unoflicial respondent i.e., the defacto complainant is that no doubt, the transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant are civil in nature, but on the date of the incident, both the petitioners abused the defacto complainalt and his wife in unparliamentar5z language and threatened them. Learned counsel also stated that the petitioners cheated the defacto complainant by giving false statement with regard to the extent of house they agreed. to sell ald therefore, the guilt of the petitioners would be established during the course of trial by a_ll the witnesses who would be examined including the defacto complainaat.

¶29

A perusal of the charge sheet in question reveals that the petitioners and the defacto complainant, who is

¶30

¶31

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.2399 of 2021

¶32

respondent No.2 herein, are residents of Bodulabanda Village, Nelakondapally Mandal, Khammam District. The petitioners agreed to sell their house to respondent No.2. An agreement of sale was entered into. The petitioners informed respondent No.2 that the extent of house to be sold is five cents. But, when the house was got measured, it was found that the extent is only four and half cents. Further, the petitioners failed to hand over the house tax receipts and link documents to the defacto complainant. On 23.7.2019, u,hen respondent No.2 and his wife approached the petitioners and requested them to give house tax receipts and link documents and to attend the Registrar's office to register the property in their name, both the petitioners abused respondent No.2 and his wife in filthy language and threatened them.

¶33

Thus, the version of respondent No.2 is that he was cheated by misrepresenting with regard to the extent of house that the petitioners' possess and in spite of taking money, the petitioners failed to register the property and

¶34

¶35

Dr.CSL, J Crll'No.2399 of 2021

¶36

further, when requested, himself^{and his wife were abused} and threatened by the^petitioners.

¶37

No doubt, rightly contended by the^learned 1n counsel for the petitioners, the transaction^iscivil nature. However, the contention^of respondent^{No'2 is that} he was cheated by the petitioners^{stating that the extent of} house they possess is five cents, though^{the actua-l extent} is four and half cents only and^{the petitionersfailed to} come forward to register the house^{despite receivingthe} entire sale consideration and further,^{when questioned,the} petitioners threatened and abused him^{and his wife.}

¶38

Having regard to the allegations^{levelied thus, it} cannot be held that no^{provisionsof criminallaw attracts} the alleged acts of the petitioners^{and that the charge sheet} is liable to be^quashed as the^{same is based on a civil} dispute. This Court does not find^{any groundsmuch less} justifiable grounds to quash the proceedings. The guilt or otherwise of the petitioners has^{to be decided by the trial} Court basing on the evidence^{that is producedby the}

¶39

¶40

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.2399 of 2O21

¶41

prosecution. Therefore, this Court holds that this Criminal

¶42

Petition lacks merits.

¶43

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶44

1 1. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications,

¶45

if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/.N. RAJA GOPAL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

q-b

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Judicial First Class Magistrate^{(Special Mobile)at Khammam.}

¶52

The Station House Officer, Nelakondapalli^{Police Station,Khammam District.}

¶53

One CC to Smt. Annapurna Sreeram,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat}

¶55

Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

Sof;tffTfft"-,^{.&,^o t L'^a 9','t"o' Lq,t+Lu*'kLoe u1;} NY

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1210712022

;
il j: 2E AUE 2[I7

ORDER

CRL.P.No.2399 of 2021

¶63

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION
./r'
@
ftr

Meesa Chalapathi Rao and another v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meesa Chalapathi Rao and another v. The State of Telangana 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

Konduru Ramesh Vs The state of Telangana

Pittala Rajiv Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Thanna Bharagav Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Philip Joseph , Yousuf Vs The State of Telangana and another

Palle Giri Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Gunja Gopi Vs State of Telangana