Allowed

Smt Nanak Devi and Another v. Smt M.v.Suryakala and Another

Telangana HC22 Jul 2022CRLP/5471/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court invoked inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings for cheating registered against petitioners who alleged procedural irregularities and suppression of facts regarding land occupancy rights and compensation awarded by the State.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Case No. 165 of 2013 registered at Chatrinaka Police Station for cheating under Section 420 IPC against petitioners is hereby quashed.

Smt Nanak Devi and Another Vs Smt M.v.Suryakala and Another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE *"rr;HiIi.o.rif,illrr$'g;r."

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

Between:

¶6

c R rMt NAL PETlTroN No: 54710F2013

¶7

j fli,ilsl?|,!f,i';#f,u.fj,:1i1,.:a.H sinsh occ Housewire, ' i,T1l,." ill!?3!,, p1,J;i1g.d#:_,i:.,, sinsh occ:Business,

¶8

AND ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

NO.1 & 2

¶10

Smt M.V.Su ryakata,special Deputy Coilector (LA), GHMC, Hyderabad

¶11

'IXffi :"F;JAxlTi,firJ;,*,JT:Jffi l:i:::::Hl:::l:"'

¶12

i,tr.i,,".**1l[#;;::il,,indfi f nIfjtil#],',i:#,!*ffff

¶13

CRL PMP. NO: 4840 OF 2013

¶14

petition under Sec

¶15

cr.P c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand ,:":,0:'of mn* J:tiTT: i:*:.'=Tilil::H j: il *,:,,""::,r 1 , chatrinaka, Hyderabad Districr pendins disposai or tne main ;,;;j::J5,:j,|s

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 C,F 2019

¶17

Between

¶18

The State of Andhra Pradesh,,^{Rep., by its Public Prosecutor'High Court of} Andhra Pradesh, at^HYderabad.

¶19

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

¶20

And

¶21

Smt Nanak Devi, Wo.^{SardarSadhu Singh, Occ :Housewife'} R/o.l-1.No.18-2-2511,^{Kandikangate, Hyderabad.}

¶22

2 Sardar Harban Singh,,^{S/o.Sardar SadhuSingh Occ:Business,} R/o^r-{.No 1B-2-25l1 ,^{Kandikangate, Hyderabad.}

¶23

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶24

3 Smt h/.V.Suryakala,^{Special DeputyCollector (LA), GHMC' Hyderabad'}

¶25

(R-3 is not necessarY Pafi)

¶26

...RESPONDENT/^COMPLAINANT

¶27

Petition under Section 482^{ofCr.P.C prayingthat inthe} circumstances statedⁱⁿ the^{Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition, the} High Court may be^{pleased tovacate the stay order grantedin} Crl.P No 5471o1 2013^{on thefileofthe Hon'ble High Courtdated21108/20'13}

¶28

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019

¶29

Petrtion under Section 482 ol^{Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition,the Highcourt may} be pleased to extend^{the interimorder dated 1410612013passed in criminal} petition No. 5471 of 2013 until further orders^{and to pass such other orderor} orders as this Hon'ble court^{may deemsfit and proper in the circumstances of} the case.

¶30

This Petition coming on for hearing,^{upon perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition^{and upon hearing the argumentsof} Sri B CHANDRASEN REDDY^{Advocatefor the Petitionerand ofthe} Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the^{Respondent No.1 & 2}

¶31

The Coun made the following: ORDER

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶33

CRL.P.No.547l OI.- 2013

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

'I.his criminal petition is filcd under Scction -iEl ( r.l'.C. secking to quash the proceedings in Cr.nvo. l6: ot' l0li ot' Chatrinaka Police Station, Hyderabad District registered against the pctitioners/A- I and A-2 lor the offences under Section -ll0 ll'}('

¶36

l. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and lcarned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos- I and I I'crused tltc nratclial on rccord.

¶37

i l he tlrst respondent lodged a complaint against thc lrl pctitioncrs alleging that an extent of 324.86 scluare ralcls plenriscs bcaring No. l8-2-25ll situatcd in suncr \o.ll-l o1' Kantlikal Village of Charminar Taluk was accluircd tbr road s idcrring liom Chatrinaka police station to Chanclnrr rrnqutt.r un(lc!' Scction I⁽ | ) ol' the Land Acquisition Act r idc- notillcution tlated I 5. I 0,1007 and an award was passed on 11.06.10 i⁽⁾ au ar ding cornpensation amount of Rs.23,55,134/- to thc pctitit)neh.

¶38

¶39

ASR,J Crlp_5471 20l3

¶40

Subscquentll,. ir has cornc ro thc light that they have suppresscd the judgment in O.S.No.243g ol 2003, wherein it was held that they were never in possession of the property under acquisition and also supprcssed thc lact ol- rhc Appcal Nos. I and 2 filed before the Joint collecror- Hlrderabad District against rhe orders in Bl/r63g/199g, dated 02.08.1984. It is lurthcr stared that the Joint Collector, Hyderabad had alloscd thc appeals vide case No.B2/7741/1994, wherein an occupancv certificate was given in their favour. All these lacts \,ere supprcssed and fraudulently obtained the compensarion arnounr ol Rs.lj.55,l3 4/-. On the basis of said complaint, thc Station House Oflficer, Chatrinaka police Station registercd a casc in crirnt, \o. i65 of 2013 under Section 420 IpC against the pcririoncrs,,- I and A_1. Aggrieved by the same, the present crimin:rl petition is flled.

¶41

Learncd counsc,l tbr the petitioners submits that the petitioncrs lr.r c r.r.t suPpressccl a,,,thing and in fact, Sardar Sadhu Singh. rvho is the husband or petitioner No.I and father of petitioncr No.l u as _9ive,rr occupancy right certificate in respect of the propcrtr to all .r,",.,, ol-.\c.-l-l] guntas in survey No.223 of

¶42

ASR,J Crlp 5471 2O l3

¶43

¶44

Kandikal Village bi' the Revenuc^Divisional Olficer^{in procccdings} No.Al/ll9i 1975, dated 20.12.1979 and they were in possession ol the abor e said extent ol land lrom the^year 1942 and thereafter,^the pclitioncrs rre in possession ol the said property.

¶45

l-earned counsel lor the petitioners further submits that one Banu Begurn and others challenged the proceedings^dateci l0.l 1.1979 l.rclirrc the Joint Collector, Hydcrabad District in Proceedings No.B2l5032/1983. The Collector remanded the matter to the RL''enuc' Divisional Officer for fresh consideration^vidc orclcr datcd 05.01. l9ll4. Thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Ot'flcer took the nutter on file in proceedings No.Bl/1638/1988 and after conducting claborate enquiry considering alt the relelant r-locurrrcr.rts dcelared that Sardar Sadhu Singh, who is the lrttstratrd ot' petitioncr \o. I and lather ol petitioner No.2 was thc rigirttul holder ot' thc occupancy certificate of sy.No.223 admeasuring \e .l-ll Luntls ol' Kandikal Villagc,^{(ll-rarirninal'larrdal.} Ilidcrabad district r,'ide order dated 02.08.1994. The said proceedings rvere again challenged before the Joint Collector, l ly dcrabad [)istrict-cr,rm-[nam Appellate T'ribtrnal. [{r tlcratraci

¶46

¶47

ASR,J Crlp-s47 1_ 20 t 3

¶48

in case No.lll 17741194.^'l.hc Ieanred Joint Collector had set aside the order of the R.D.O. and remanded the same for de novoenquiry to detemine the nature olthe land vide order dated 16.04.201 l.

¶49

Leamed counsel [or the petitioners further submits that Sardar Sadhu Singh, who is the husband ofperitioner No. l and father of petirioner No.l filed Wp.No.2206g of 20ll challenging the order in proceedings No.Br''77,1 r/94, dated r6.04.201r of the Joint Collector and consequential proceedings in case No.Bl435/2010 and in the said writ petition in WpMp.No.26909 of 201 l, the proceedines befbrc rhe Revenue Divisional Officer were stayed vide order dated 1g.04.2012 and the same was extended lrom tirre to tinrc.

¶50

Learned coultscl lurlhL-r sublnits that the petitioners and others filed O.S.No.t009 ol ]001 on the tile of V Junior Civil Judge's Court. Cit-r ('ir il (.our1. llrderabad lor perpetual Injunction againsr .[unicipal Corporariorr ol. f{yderabad and the same was decrced vidc .judgment and decree dated 02.12.2003. O.S.No.l4.j-s ot'l()01 1ri ron-el_r ntenrioncd as O.S.No.l43g of 2003 in the complair'rl ) \as rlrcd {br rnere injunction and it is nothing to

¶51

)

¶52

ASR,.J Crlp 547I 20 13

¶53

do r,,ith the titlc ol'thc property. The petitioners are the rightlul owners and are in possession of the property since 1942 Therefbre, the entire allegations of the complaint are taken to be true, no otlence is rnade out attracting the ollence punishable under Sectiorr 110 tPC. \f ith the above submissions, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶54

[,carncd .-\ssistant Public Prosecutor submits that the petitiorrcrs have liaudulcntll obtained compensation amount supprcssing the matcrial lacts as stated in the complaint with tiaudulcnt intention nnd the allegations ol the complaint satisry the insrc'dicnts ol the oltence punishable under Section 420 IPC against thc petitioncrs. Therelore, she prayed to dismiss the pctrl r()n

¶55

{20 II'( :

¶56

Io constitute arr ollbnce underSection 420, there should not onlr hc chcating. but as a conscquence of such cheating, the accusrd should havc dishonestll induced the person deceived:

¶57

¶58

ASR,J Crlp 5471 2OI3

¶59

(i) to dclircr an) propcrtv to an\ persotr. or

¶60

(ir) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anylhing signed or ;ealed 'a;d^-w;i;; is capable of being convcrted into a valuablc securltf'

¶61

A perusal ol the allegations ol thc complaint would disclose that an extent ol l14.g6 square )ards ln premlses bearing No.l8-2-25ll situared ln survey No.223 ol Kandikal Village of Charminar Taluk u'as acquired lor road u.idening from Chatrinaka police srarion to Chandrayangurta under Scction 4 ( I ) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1g94, vide notification, dated I5.I0.2007. and an as,ard vu.as passed on 11.06.2010 awarding colnpensation anloulit ol Rs.l--],55.1-.i-1,,- to the petitioners and it is also stated that the petitioners have suppressed the judgment in O.S.No.24ig of'100..1. r,n.herein it t'as held that they were never in possession ol-the propertl, undcr acquisition. But infact the petirioncrs filed O.S.No.2435 ol. 1003 (wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.l-138 ol' 100,1 ) fbr nrcrc in junction and it is nothing to do with thc titlc ol. rllc prope rtr. [.;ndisputedly, the petitioners and others llled O.S.No. 1009 of 1002 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge.s Court. Cit1, Civil Courr. Iil,derabad for perpea.ra'l injunction in rcsp.r..c1 ol'subject prcllcr1-\ irnd the same

¶62

ASR,J Crlp 5471 2013

¶63

¶64

was decrced r''ide its decree and iudgmcnt^{dated02.12.2003.It is} also alleged that the petitioners also suppressed^{the fact of Appeal} Nos. I and 2 befbre the Joint Collector, Hyderabad. The said appeals *ere allou,ed vidc ordcr 16.04.201 l, wherein the Joint Collcctor hcld that the land \as not under cultivation as on 0l.ll.l97i and as such, the question of^grant of occupancy rights docs not arise and the lancl should bc deemcd to have been^vested in thc Governnrcnt u'.e.t. :0.07.19-i5. Accordingly, the orders of the Revenue Divisional Otllcer. Hyderabad-cum-lnam^Tribunalin au.",.,''6.Bi 1638,88. dated 01.08.199.1. is set aside and remanded the rnatter to thc R.[).(-). I Ir ciclrbad I)ivision lor de novo enquiry to determinc tlrc nature ol'the lancl by giving opportunity to the partie:; concerncd. Br,rt thc lrrst respondent alleged that these facts were supprcsscd b1 th.' l)ctition!-rs and they have fraudulently obtained the cornpensatiorl :.lnrourtt ol' Rs.23,55,134/-^However, on pcrusal ot-thc nraterial rccord discloses that the^petitioners filed WP.No.l106fi ol l0l l chirllcn:lins oltlcr, dated 16.04.201l, of the tn Joint Collector. Hyderabad. ln the said writ^petition, WI'}l\lP.No.l690() of l0ll this^('ourt ride order, clated 18.04.2012,

¶65

¶66

ASR,J Crlp 54 7l 2O 13

¶67

: tI

¶68

¶69

granted stay of all lurther proceedings before thc [{cvenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad and the same was extended lrom time to time and on 19. I 1.2012, the said order was extendcd until furthcr orders. As such, though there is dispute s.ith resard to the proceedings of occupancy right certificate in l.avour ol the petitioners, in view of the stay orders in wpMp.No.26909 or 20l r, the occupancy right certificate. which according to thc petitioners, was standing in favour of Sardar Sadhu Singh ro an exrenr of Ac.4-23 guntas in sy.No.223 ol Kandikal Village. Chan.ninar Mandal, I{yderabad District.

¶70

Further it is bome out from the record thar the Special Deputy Collector, LA, GI{MC, H_v-derabad issued shou._cause notice in File No.A/I082/2001/l7].. dated 1,s.05.10|I to petirioner No.2/A-2. Wherein, it is menrioned thar an arvard in proceedings No.A/10g2/2007. darc,d 1.1.06.10 l0 uas passed awarding compensation amount or'Its.r.r.5-i. r-l-l -. .ut .r'ri hiclr an amount of Rs.5,58,004/- was paid to hir.. The noticc firrther reveals that he has suppressed the lhctunr ol scttine asicle the occupancy cerlificate grarrted r ide ordcr. clatcd 01.0g. I9l . and

¶71

.--_-------7

¶72

¶73

ASR,.J Crlp 5a7l 20 l3

¶74

that he has no title to the property to an extent ol Ac.4-23 guntas in survey No.223 and he has tiaudulcntll obtained compensation amount by suppressing the material lacts as mentioned therein. Petitioner No.2/A-2 submitted detailed explanation giving the details ol the procecdings and obtairrirrs of intcrirn stay in the writ petition before this Courl as stated supra. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioners tried to deceive the first respondent either by making lalse or mis-reprcscntation or r ith fiaudulently or dishonest intention induced the flrst rcspondcnt and consequently obtained the compensation ar.nount.

¶75

[n view ol' the atbre slid dise Lr:sron. as the ingredients ol cheating are totally missing. it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed olfince uncler Section Jl(l ll)('

¶76

ln Stue of Harl'unu t Bhttjun lolr the Apex court held as

¶77

under:-

¶78

In the htckdrop ol thc inlcrl',retltitrrr rrl lhc various relcvant prorisirrns t,t iire^{( (r(lc} ulJcr'( hlpttr \lV and of'the principlcs ol larr crrunr-irrted hr thi:⁽ ()Lrrl in l serics of decisions rriating t(] tlrc crcrcisc ol the crtraordinary power under nnicic ll(r or thc inhcrent poucrs undcr Scction^-182 of the code uliich ue hare ertracted and repnrduccd abore. we

¶79

I (1992) Suppl.l SCC l' .].lJ

¶80

¶81

ASR..J Crlp 5471 2013

¶82

gire the fbl.lowing catcgories o['cases bl uar or irustrati.n uhcrein such power could be exercised "i,h".^{io pr..} ";;^;;;r" ol the process of any Court or otherwise ,o ,..ri" it" ",rf,. oi justice. though.it may not be possible to tav ao*n unv p,"1i.". crea.rry oetlned and sufficiently channelised an,J lnhcxihlc 'fi.i'or guidelines or rigid formulae anj to giue * "i,urr,irl" ml riad kinds ofcases wherein such po'we, ,fr"rfa t. ""rii.",].

¶83

(.1 ) where the arlegations made in the tirsr inlirrnratiorr ren()n or the complaint, even if they are taken " ,rr"li i"". ,"i1.'r^a

¶84

accepted in their entirety do not prima fu"ic .onrtitut.i ,nr orrcnce or make out a case against the accused.

¶85

(1,) \Uherc the allegations in the first infbnlarion r!_n()rl an.l other. rnaterials, if any, accompanying rhe IjlR dn nnr Jlr.ln.. u cognizablc. olfenc.e. justilying an in\esrigitri()rr hr srlrlj;1. ol I rcers under Section I 56( I .y o[ the Code exc-cpr und., ,n'ord". or a Magtstrate within the purview of Section I 55 (2 ) ol the Code.

¶86

Where the uncontroverted allegations madc in rhe [:lll. or complaint and the evidence collectcd in support,rt ,t.,.i-.,,,r.,.1 r:tn not disclose the commission of any.off-ence ,,,,,f ,r,ri" ,,u, , case against the accused.

¶87

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do nor constirule a cogniizable offence but constitute only o nu,,_"og"lrnif" offcnce, on investigation is permitted iv u p,r[."-,,iri"., uidtoul a-n.order ofa Magistrate as contentplatcd ul)dcr Scction I 55t I ) ol the Code.

¶88

(-5) Whcrc the allegations made in the filR or ctrrrrl.rlainl arc so ebsurd and inherently improbable on rhc hasis ,ir: ,riri.i, ,,. ftrudcnt^person can ever reach a just conclusion lll:lt llterc ls sulficient grounds for proceeding against thc accuscd.

¶89

16)^\rhere there is an express legal bar encraticd in arrr rrl. lhe lrorisions ol the Code or the concerneJ l\ct (,,,rJc, rrhich I crinrinal proceedings is instituted) to lhc ir):rirtrri()n irrd continuance of the proceedings and/or rrhcre tlrcrc ,.,, .n".i,i. r)ro\isior) in the Code or the conccrne(l .(t. ,r,jrl.f,n* .'lficacious redress for the grievance ofrhe uggri","d fortr."

¶90

(7).\lterc a criminal proceeding is nranil.esth atrcnticd rrith nrala lidc,and/or where the proceeding is ntalicl,,u.l. iurtirLrrcd riith an rrltcrior ntotive lor r,r,.reakinu \L,ngcilnaa ,,,, ,t,. -,aa,,.".f arrd. rrith a ricu to spite hint duc to prir.rtc .,,,.t n.r.,r,,rt g rud rc.^"

¶91

) I I

¶92

ll ASR.J Crlp .-.171 20 t 3

¶93

I t

¶94

I5. In Inder Mohan Cosu'ami r. State Of I ttaranchalr. the

¶95

IIon'ble Apex Court explained rhe scopc ol Sc-ction .181 Cr.lr.C. and held that inherent powers under sccrion 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingh, caretullr, and n,ith great caution and only when such exercise is .justiticd by the tests specifically laid down in this section itselL lf anv abuse ol the process leading to injustice is brought ro the noricc of'the court, then the Court would be .jusri lied It) preVenting injustice by invoking inherent powers of the Courr.

¶96

C)n going through the allcsarions ol rhc cornpluint'[-'.1.R., the present case squarely lalls within thc catceon o1 eascs enumerated above in the Bajanlal's case cited supra, as the said allegations even if they are taken at their tirce raluc and in its cnrirer. do not prima lacie constitute any' olll.ncc or rnukc out casc asainst the accused.

¶97

ll. ln view of the lbrcgoinu rli:e rr.sion. ut tlrc lisht ot' thc principles laid down in thc aboi c tlccisions ri irh rcgard to

¶98

r AIR 2OO8 SC 25 I

¶99

¶100

ASR..] Crlp 5471 2O l3

¶101

i i

¶102

Section 482 Cr.p.C. the further proceedings in pursuance of crime No. I65 o12003 are not sustainable. Hence, it is considered as a fit case ro invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 4g2 Cr.l,.C. and quash the proceedings.

¶103

In the result, the criminal petition is allou,ed. l.he prosr'edings in (-r.No. 165 ol 2013 of Chatrinaka policc Station registered fbr the offence under Section 420 lpc againsr the pct rt rorrers/,- I and A-2 Hyderabad District, are herebv cluashecl

¶104

To,

¶105

//TRUE COPY//

¶106

SD/.T.JAYASREEE i AsstsrANr ffGtsrRAR i secldffibrncen

¶107

The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2 The Station House Officer,^-Chakinaka Foii"u Strilon, Hyderabad 3 one cC to SRt. B CHAN-DRASEru neoOinJ".ilie 1oeuc1 4 Two CCs to the pUBLtC PROSECUTOR, HiS; Cil for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT] - 5 Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy SB $..r-!

HIGH COURT

DATED:22 tOTt2O2Z

ORDER

!,/./
t1 !lT 7f!!2

CRLP.No. S4T1 of 2013

¶113

ALLOWING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS

¶114

R,'5^

Smt Nanak Devi and Another v. Smt M.v.Suryakala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nanak Devi and Another v. Smt M.v.Suryakala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fahad Syed Nooruddin Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Smt. D.Anjamma, Hyd and Another Vs Public Prosecutor, Hyd and Another

Javed Ahmed Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

M/S. Mahima Datla, Hyd and Anr., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp and Anr.

Mahendar Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Smt. M.Madhumathi Vs the State of Ap.,Rep by Police Shamirpet, and Anothers