Dismissed

D.Krishna Prasad, Nalgonda Dt., v. State, Thr Pp., Hyd and Anr.

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022CRLP/5785/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Telangana High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was accused of misappropriating society funds. The court held that there were material ingredients attracting the alleged offences which would require a full-fledged trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; proceedings against the petitioner allowed to continue.

D.Krishna Prasad, Nalgonda Dt., Vs State, Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

<br>

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETI TION NO: 5785 0F 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

D.KR.ISHNA PRASAD, NALGONDA DT.,, S/o. Sreenadhan, Teacher, R/o. Teachers Colony, Bhongir, Nalgonda Distribt.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUbEO

¶10

AND

¶11

1 9T3TF,THR: PP., HYD through the pubtic prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad.

¶12

P.aila Ashok Re{dy, S/o_ Yadi Reddy, Teacher, R/o. H.No. 3_2-87, Meena Nagar, tshongtr Iown, Nalgonda District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶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. B'18 of 2006, pending on the file of the Additional Judicial'First class Magistrate, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

¶15

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(CRLPM P. NO: 5135 OF 2013)

¶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 including appearance of the petitioner in cc No.816 of 2006 pending on the file of Addl. Judt. First ctass l\ragistrate, Bhongiri, Nalgonda Dist., pending disposal of the quash proceedings.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lt/emorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri sRINIVASA RAO t\4ADIRAJU ,Advocate for the petitioner and the public prosecutor (TG/Ap)

¶18

on behalf of the Respondent No. and of Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶21

CRL.P.No.5785 OF 2013

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.p.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A- l4 in C.C.No.8l8 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, Nalgonda District.

¶24

Heard learned counsel 1br the petitioner, Iearned counsel for the second respondenVcomplainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/Statc. Perused the record.

¶25

The second respondent filed a private complaint before the leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, Nalgonda District, against A- I to A-8 alleging of'fences punishable under Sections 403,406,418,420,423 and 506 IPC and rhe same was forwarded by the learned Magistrare to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation and rcpofi. Thereafter, the police, Bhongir Town registered a case in Cr.No. I I 'l ol 2006 against A- l to A-8. After completion of investigation, rhe police filed charge sheet in C.C.No.Sl8 of 2006 against A-l to A-3, A-5 to A-8 and

A-12 to A-14 for the offences^{punishableunder Sections420,406} & 408 IPC and against A-4,^{A-5 & A-9 to A-11 fbr the offences} punishabte under Sections 419,406 &^{408 IPC.}

¶31

The allegations in the^{complaint, in brief, are that A-1 and} A-2 approached the^{complainant in the month of August 1999and} requested him to^{join the society formedby them Viz.,"Bhongir} Teacher's Housing Colony^{Society,Bhongir"-A-1, as Presidentof} the society and^{A-2, as General Secretary, also informedhim that} they are cieveloping^{a land in Sy.No.763lAA part admeasuring} Acs.5-24 Gts., situated^{at Bhongir Village by forming layoutand} that the said society^{was formed for the welf'areof 'Ieachers, who} will only be the members of^{the society.}

¶32

It is further^{alleged that the complainantwas allotted} a plot admeasuring^{300 sq.yardsin the said layout.A-1 & A-2} had enticed and^{induced the complainant to purchase the plot} and he, accordingly,^{paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to them'} On 07.05.2001,^{A-l and A-2 issued/supplieda circular along with} a layout map to^{the complainant stating that in the meeting held on} 04.05.2001, they^{havefixed rates, extentsand numbers for each}

¶33

¶34

plots in the layout and directed all the members to pay the remaining amounts on or before 15.06.2001 and, accordingly, the corrplainant paid a lurther amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, in all the complainant paid an amount ol Rs.35,000/-.

¶35

It is further alleged that the complainant was allotted plot No.l9 (new 39) admeasuring 300 sq. yards in the layout in the draw conducted by A- I and A-2 and they promised to issue allotment letter later. After waiting for quite some time, the complainant rcquested A- 1 and A-2 for issuance of allotment letter, but A- I and A-2 stated that they are not issuing any allotment lettcrs and they are only making an endorsement in their rccords as regards the members who are allotted respective plot numbcrs.^'l.hcy lirrrher stated that they are going to register sale dccds without issuing allotment letters, but they lailed to do SO 'l he cornplainant time and again approached A- I and A-2, who one prctext or the other dodged execution of sale deed At orre point ol tirne, A- I and A-2 stated that the layout has been scnt li)r applo',al and that they have been delaying the registration lor onc reason or the other.

¶36

¶37

l,r

¶38

7 . It is further alleged that^the complainant^{made numberof} visits and repeatedly requested A- I and A-2^{to registerthe plot in} his narne. but they stated that^they are^{no moreactillg as President} and Secretary of the society^{and directed the complainantto} approach A-3 to A-5,^{whoare President, General Secretary and} 'I'reasurer of the society. Accordingly, the complainant approached A-3 to A-5, who^{gave evasivereplies.The complainant time} and again met A-3 to A-5 to^{get the sale deed registered in his} favour, but in the month^{of April, 2005,A-3 to A-5 stated that they} are also no more acting in^{the said society in any capacityand} directed the complainant^{to approachA-6 to A-8, who are} President, Secretary and^{Treasurer of the society and, accordingly'} he approached them several^{times anduseci to get the same reply'} ,4-6 to A:8 asked the complainant^{to pay an amountof Rs' 18,000/-} towards municipal^{permission and registrationexpensesand} the same were also^{paid by him on 30.01.2006 lor whichA-7 on} behalfofthe society^{had issued a cash voucher to the complainant'} When the complainant^{made physical verihcationof his plot,to} his utter shock, he found^{some constructionin the saidplot'} I mmediately, he contacted A- 1 to^{A-8 and theystated that thc}

¶39

¶40

society is constructing a club buitding for the members and^{in lieu} ol the said plot, he was allotted another plot bearing No.36^(new) with the same extent and A-l to A-8 assured that thc^{said plot will} be registered in his name. Later, when^{the complainant approached} A-l to A-8 on several occasions, they^{have given evasive replies'} The complainant came to know that 4,-6 to^{A-8 have falselymade} m isrepresentations and misdeeds and got some sale^deeds registered in favour of some third parties who are^{not mernbersol-} the society

¶41

The complainant further alleged that A-3 to A-5^{also got} colluded with A-1 and A-2 and got registered some^{sale deedsin} lavour of members and non-members without any authority^posing themselves as President, Secretary and Treasurer^{o1' the society.} Later, on 30.06.2006, the complainant approached^{A-6 and A-8 at} their olfice where A- I to A-5 were also^{present and he rcquested} thern to execute registered sale deed in his lavour^{in respect olthe} nervly allotted plot i.e., plot No.36^(new) lor^which all^{the accused} abused him in fitthy language and^threatened him.^{Based on the} abor e complaint, police registered^a case in Cr.No.^I l4^{ol 2006 lbr}

¶42

¶43

the offences under Sections 403, 406, 419,420,423 and 506 IpC and took up investigation and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.Sl8 of 2006 for the offences stated above.

¶44

The second respondent flled counter alfidavit along with the vacate stay petition denying the allegations in the complaint and submitted that the petitoner/A-I4 is also guilty of the alleged' offences, as he was a member of the governing body as Vice President of the society and he has also actively participated in the affairs of the society and being a member and Vice president of the society, he has swindled rhe public money and there is evidence against the petitioner that he cornmitted the alleged offences. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the criminal petition.

¶45

Leamed counsel for the petition er/ A-14 submits that none of the allegations in the complaint B,ould attract any of the cognizable offences against the petitioner herein. A- l4 was Vice president of the Society only from 1998 and by 2006. he was not the Vice President and as such he cannot be connected with the alleged offences. Since none of the allcqations attract the alleged offences

¶46

¶47

against the petitioner herein, continuation of proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process o{' law. He prayed for quashing of the proceedings against petitioner/A- I 4.

¶48

Learned Assistant Public Proseculor representing the first respondenVState submits that the petitioner/A- 14, as Member and Vice President of the society, is also liable lor the alleged offences and as such the criminal petition against him may be dismissed and permit the trial court to proceed with the case.

¶49

Leamed counsel for the second respondenVcomplainant submits that the petitioner was Vice Presid!'nt during the relevant period and the goveming body, including the petitioner, has misused the society funds and they havc committed irregularities by sale of plots to the persons, who are not mernbers of the society and the complainant is one ol the^victims. The allegations in the charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses prima Jacie altract the ingredients of the alleged offcnces. Ile prars tbr dismissal of the criminal petition.

¶50

The allegations in the chargc sheet go to show that A-1 and A-2 approached the conrplainant and reqlrcsted hirn to^join

¶51

¶52

¶53

the society lormed by thern viz., "Bhongir Teacher's Housing Colony Society, Bhongir". They also informed him that they are developing a land in Sy.No.763lAA part admeasuring Acs.5-24 Gts., situated at Bhongir Viltage by forming layout and that the said society was formed for the welfare of Teachers, who witt only bc the members of the society. The complainant intended to purchase thc plot ol 300 sq. yards and, accordingly, paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to them. The allegations would furthcr reveal that thc complainant paid a further amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, in all the complainant paid an amount of Rs.35,000/-. The complainant was allotted plot No.l9 (new 36) admeasuring 300 sq. 1'ards in the layout and A-1 and A-2 promised to issue allotment letter later. After waiting for quite some time, the complainant requested A- I and A-2 for issuance of allotment letter, but they stated that thel' are not issuing any allotment letters and they are only rnaking an endorsement in their records. A-1 and A-2, on one pretext or the other dodged execution of sale deed. The accused have been postponing the issuance of allotment letter stating that they have to receive approval orders for layout registration from the office at l{yderabad. It is alleged that the

¶54

¶55

¶56

complainant paid an amount ol Rs.18,000/- to the goveming body towards municipal permission and registration expenses for which A-7 on behall of the societv had issued a cash voucher to the complainant. The allegations further disclose that when the complainant enquired about the illegal construction being undertaken in his plot, the accused stated that since the complainant did not pay the instalments in stipulated time, they are constructing a club. Upon this, the complainant issued legal notice to the govcming body and in reply thereto, the accused replied that the complainant will be allotted another plot i.e., plot bearing No.36, instead of 19.

¶57

It is also alleged in the charge sheet that the society was registercd as^"Teacher's Housing Colony Society, Bhongir" and A-1 to A-3 and A-ll and A-13 were registered from 04.04.1998 to 03.10.2005 while 4-6 as President, A-7 as General Secretary, A-8 as Treasurer and A- 14 as Vice President were approved as the next goveminc. body. So. the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet fbrtify that that A- 14 was Vice President in the second goveming body. lt is alleged that the registered governing body

¶58

¶59

has taken in all Rs.35,000/- from the complainant as^{rvell as other} victims i.e.. L.Ws.3, 5 to I i and issued receipts for^payment ol cash, but dishonestly cheated them without allotting^{or registering} the plots on their names.

¶60

The allegations in the charge sheet and^statementsof witnesses would disclose that the petitioner/A- l4 is a^{member in} the Bhongir Teachers' Housing Colony, Bhongir^{and acted as} Vice President. The statements of witnesses would^{reveal that not} only the second respondent/complainant was victim^{but also other} witnesses, who are cited as L.Ws.3, 5 to 11, were also^victims.who werc inciuced to become members of the society, and^assured allotment of plots to them and the accused though collected^money, did not allot plots to them. It is also alleged^that societl'goveming body had registered some^plots to the^{non members also.}

¶61

A perusal of the statements of the^{witnesses woulddisclose} that sorr.rc Teachers have^paid money^{to the unaulhorizedgoveming} body and solne of^them have^{paid money to thc authorizecl} goveming body with a fond hope that^{they will be getting plots} and obtainecl receipts.

¶62

¶63

After considering the allegations in the charge sheer and the statements of the witnesses, apart from the complaint/IIR, there are specific allegations against the^..Bhongir Teacher's Housing Colony Society, Bhongir" about inducement of Teachers to become members of the soiiety and they have parted with the money with a hope that they will get plot of 300 sq. yards each. The allegations would further reveal that the unauthorized governing body had collected amounts from the members and also got registered the plots unauthorisedly to the witnesses i.e., L.Ws. l2 to 16.

¶64

.18.^{A cumulative reading of all the allegationsin the charge} sheet and complaint/FlR would prima facie satisfy that there are material ingredients attracting the alleged offences against the peritioneriA- 14. whether or not any motive can be attributed to the petitionel and whether or not the petitioner was also responsible for swindling of funds of the society and illegally registered thc plots, would cortre to light only after conducting full-fledged rrial.

¶65

t9. ln view of the above, I am of considered view thal there are no justit'iable grounds to invoke the inherent powers ol.this court

¶66

¶67

under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash the proceedings against the

¶68

petitioner/A- 14.

¶69

In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶70

Pending rniscellaneous petitions, ifany, stand closed.

¶71

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SE.#torr,"=*

To,

The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Bhongir.

¶76

The Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhongir.

¶77

Two CC to Public Prosecutor, High Court for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶78

One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Advocate IOPUC]

¶79

One CC to SRI N. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶80

Two CD Copies 7. One spare Copy. NPJ{

HIGH COURT

DATED:1410712022

l! ,
q
2s ruE 2stl

ORDER

CRLP.No.5785 of 2013

n
&
v DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL
WITHOUT COSTS.

¶87

PETITTON

D.Krishna Prasad, Nalgonda Dt., v. State, Thr Pp., Hyd and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Krishna Prasad, Nalgonda Dt., v. State, Thr Pp., Hyd and Anr.

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

M/S.Prakruthi Infrastructure and Devel. and 2 Others Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by Its P.P.and Anr.

Gudepu Balaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

M.Vijaya Krishna Goud, R.R.Dist. Vs M. Arundathi, R.R.Dist. and 2 Othrs

Patnam Srinivasan, Prakasam Dt., Vs State of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Smt P. Rajeshwari and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Durgala Krishna Prasad Vs the State of a.P., and Another