Dismissed

K. Chenchurami Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Jul 2022CRLP/4468/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR alleging cheating and property fraud filed by petitioners (accused). Court held allegations were grave and not purely civil, rejecting quash prayer but directing no coercive arrest pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Court dismissed Criminal Petition; directed Investigating Officer not to take coercive steps like arrest against petitioners.

K. Chenchurami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IMONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DT, JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4468 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

'l . K. Chenchurami Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Advocate, 8-3-1012, Flat No.201, Emkay Manor,^S ri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500073.

¶8

Dr. K. Meghana Reddy, D/o.Dr. P. Rama^{Devi, Agedabout} .25^years, Occ. Doctoi, Plot No.30, Emkay lvlanor, Sri Nagar Colony,^Hyderabad- 500073

¶9

...Petitioners/Accused

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its^{lnspector of PolicePS.} Shamshabad Cyberabad, through Public^{Prosecutor, High Court at} Hyderabad.

¶12

...RespondenUComplainant

¶13

Mandadi Narender Reddy, S/o. Late. Ramchandra^{Reddy, Aged.54yea1s,} Occ.Business, No.7-1201128, Plot No.'128,^{179,Sri Balaji Township, RCI} Road, Near Edify School, Balapur, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict.}

¶14

...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C^{prayingthat in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition, the High Courtmay} be pleased to^quash the^{proceedingsin Cr.No.217 of 2022 on the file of Police} Station Shamshabad, Cyberabad against^{the Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 in} the interest of^justice.

¶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 Courtmay}

¶18

¶19

be pleased to stay of all further proceedings, including arrest of the petitioner in Cr.No.217 ot 20i12 on the file of Police Station Shamshabad, Cyberabad, pending disposal of the n ain Crl. Petition.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of C)riminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Pramod Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.l and of Sri T. Chandra Shekar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4468 o{ 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

we!'e Projecting that unlawful proceedings initiated against them by registering a case in Crime No.217 of 2022 by the Station House Ofhcer, Shamshabad Police Station, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2, are before this Court

¶26

Heard the submission of petitioner No.l who argued in person. Also, heard the learned Assistant Pubiic Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2"

¶27

On the ground that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 and one D.Srinivas Reddy, who is arrayed as accused No.3, have committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 42O, 424, 467, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC, a case was registered against them. The basis for registration of the said case, as^per the material available on record, is the complaint presented by respondent No.2 before the com .-. \etent

¶28

¶29

¶30

Dr CSI_, ,l Crll'No.a 4 68 of 2O22

¶31

Court uncier Section 200 Cr.p.C The complaint thus pres;enteci, was forwarded to police for investigation and liling report. The police registered a case and star,ed in.restigation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶32

4 Arguing at length in respect of the merits of the case, petitioner No.1 submitted that himself and petitioner No.2 have not committed any offences ancj indeeC, suppressing the pendency of Writ petition tio.29223 of 2OOB, the case was got registered against them. petitioner No. 1 contends that deliberate non_ disclor;ure of the pendency of the said Writ petition itself :aakes the complaint unsustainable. petitioner No.1 further contended that a civil dispute was tried to be converted into a cnminal case and therefore, the proceedings are not maintainable. petitioner No. 1 also stated that in series of decisions, the Honble Apex Court held that inherent power under Secti on 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised by the High Courts to secure ;-he ends of justice and this is a classic case where srrch power has to be exercised. petitione. \o.1

¶33

¶34

I)r.CSl.,.! CrlPNo.4468 oJ 2O22

¶35

lurther submitted that an effort to settle a civil dispute by involving himself and petitioner No.2 in criminai proceedings should be viewed seriously.

¶36

Vehemently opposing the submission made by petitioner No. 1, the lt:arned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioners tried to get the property of respondent No.2 registered in their name and respondent No.2 having perceived the ill-desire and motive of the petitioners, gave a complaint to Police and took steps and that, it is the petitioners arld accused No.3 who tried to make illegal gain and therefore, it is they who have cheated respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submitted that in case, the Police concerned investigates into the case, the truth would come out.

¶37

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there a-re grave and pnma facie allegations against an the petitioners and that, petitioner No. 1 being advocate deliberately tried to misappropriate the property of respondent No.2 and get the sarne registered in the name of petitioner No.2.

¶38

¶39

DT,CSL, J CrlPNo 44 68 of 2O22

¶40

During the course of submission, the learned counsei for respondent No.2 made a mention that petition er No.2 is represented to be the daughter of "Dr. P.Ilama Devi" and intentionally, the name of her father is not mentioned. petitioner No. 1 opposing the said s,tatement, contended that law provides mentioning of name of the mother and such an objection is unsustainable.

¶41

B. However, subsequentiy, by the submission of both the parties, the fact that could be perceived by this Court is that petitioner No"2 is the daughter of petitioner No.l and Dr. p.Rama Devi is the wife of petitioner No. l.

¶42

Thr: case of respondent No.2, as could be perceived through the contents of the complaint, is that his company purchased landed property admeasuring 4cs.8.22 guntas in Survey No.B1 of Thondupally Village, lihamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from one K.Laxman Rao under a registered sale deed for valuatrle consideration in the yeat 2006. During the year 2OO!), the Government tried to interfere with t.re

¶43

Dr.CSL,.j CtlFNo.4468 of 2O22

¶44

said land and on that, respondent No.2 filed a suit uide O.S.No"5O0 of 2OO9 and the Court ol principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District which dealt with the said strit decreect the same in favour of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 intended to get the propertz mutated in his narne. He was informed that by oversight the said property was entered in the prohibitory list of Revenue and Registration Department. Accused No.3 approached one Narender Reddy, who was looking after the affairs of the company of respondent No.2, and informed that petitioner No.l f accused No.1 being an advocate would rectify the problem and would get the property removed from the prohibitory list. By believing the words of accused No.3, Narender Reddy went to the of{ice of petitioner No. 1/accused No. 1 Petitioner No.1 and accused No.3 assured that they would solve the problem arnd get the property removed from the prohibitory list. They demanded Rs.23 lakhs for doing the said act. Narendra Reddy paid the said amount to petitioner No" 1 and accused No.3. petitioneg

¶45

¶46

DT,CSL, J CrlPNo.44(t8 of 2O22

¶47

No. 1/a<:cused Nc. I askei respondent l.lo.2 to provicie all the documents and accordingly, altr the relevant riocumf,nts were handed over to petitioner No. 1/ar:cused No. 1. Without the knowiedge and consenl. of respondent No.2, petitioner No. 1 and accuse<l No.3 through accused No.2 filed Writ Petition No.5i9li ol 2O2l before this Court and subsequently, withdrew the said Writ Petition" On suspicion, respon(lent No.2 enquireci into the matter and came to know tl-rat without his knowledge arrd consent, a Writ Petition was filed and sale <ieed was created in the narne c,f accused No.2 by forging and fabricating the signatures of the Managing Director of the company as if the company executed the same and basing on the said forged, created and fabricated sale deed, the accuserl filed a Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.Ba46 of 2O2l before this Court. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 and 3 started threatening the company's GPA holder.^Thus, the ac<;used with a malafide intention and with an oblique motive, cheated respondent No.2 and tried^to grab the property.

¶48

Dr.CSL, .l CrlPNo.4468 of 2O22

¶49

No doubt, as rightly submitted by^{petitioner No. I,} v/hen the aliegations made in the F.i.R. or^cornplaint does not oisclose the commission cf^{any offence and} when a crvil dispute is tried to be^{resolved through} criminal prosecution, for deprecating and^discouraging tlre said process, the Court is^{under obligationto} exercise the inherent^{power grantedto it underSection} 482 Cr.P.C.

¶50

11" However, in the case on hand, the^{allegationsare} grave in nature. The version of respondent^{No.2 is that} believing the words of petitioner^{No. 1 that he would get} the properff released from the^{prohibitory list, he} handed over huge amount and the relevant^documents to petitioner No.l and that^{petitionerNo. 1 along with} his wife and daughter, i.e.,^{petitioner No"2, tried to get} the propert5z registered in their^{narne arrd thereby, tried} to cheat him. Therefore, it cannot^{be held that the} dispute is purely civil in nature.

¶51

12" During the course of submission,^learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended^{that accused} No.3 is an employee of this High Court^{and he istti.}

¶52

¶53

D.CSL, J ('rlP^'o t4SB o[ 2022

¶54

p erscn ,,r, ho m ade responcient No.2 hand over huge amolrnt and aiso the reievant documents to petitioner N.r.l and it is the accused who thereafter conspired with each other and tried to get the property converted inr.o their name. The allegation is also that without the knowledge of respondent No.2, a Writ petition was filed in .Iis name by lorging the signatures of the concerned_ Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further contended thai even an attempt was made to mislead the High Court by fiIing faJse affidavits and Writ petitions. The above allegations are grave in nature"

¶55

13, Therefore, having regard to the alregations thus made, it cannot be held that the dispute is purely civil in nature. This Court does not find any grounds, more so justifiable gourds to exercise the inherent power grarrted to it under Section 482 Cr.p.C. and quash the proceedings. The power granted under Secti on 4g2 Cr.P.C. has to be sparingly exercised, that too, when convincing grounds are projected that there is either abuse of process of law or that, such a power is required to be exercised to meet the ends of justiqe.

¶56

()

¶57

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.4468 of 2O22

¶58

This Court does not find any such grounds in this CASE Therefore, this Court considers that the relief sought.for cannot be granted.

¶59

Resultrrntiy, the Criminal petition is dismissert. However, considering the submission of petitioner No.1 that he is a practicing advocate before this Court and that petitioner No.2 is his daughter and they would not flee from the process of law, this Court directs the Investigating Officer not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners, except under the procedure established by law.

¶60

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications,

¶61

if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

¶63

SD/. K.SAILES DEPUTY^REGIS

,TRUE^COPY//

SECTIO OFFICER

To 1. The XIV^{Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' Cyberabad' at Rajendranagar'} 2. The^{station House off#, s;;;lriuaopotic'estation' cvberabad'} 3. Two^{CCs to the punric i"'oJecui"i'iigrt Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶68

d; Cc i; iri^{PiamodKumar,Advocate [oPUQ.} ;. o;; cc^{to sti T. chandra Shekar' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶69

Two CD^CoPies

¶70

One SPare^CoPY

MtUK \ Y

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810712022

ORDER

? c-)3 1HE S -rr 1 ox.i
+ (
o 0 3 AU8 2022 tt il
:?.) I.+

¶76

CRLP.No.4468 ol 2022

¶77

DISMISSING TFIE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶78

@#",

K. Chenchurami Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Chenchurami Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Md. Shaluddin Siddique Vs State of Telangana and 8 Others

Shaik Fathima , Shaik Pathima Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Kanaparthy Shyam Sunder Vs The State of Telangana

Perni Aneesha Vs The State of Telangana

M. Sandhya Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Madadi Mounika Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another