Dismissed

Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed, Hyd and Ano v. Police Zaheerabad Town and Ano

Telangana HC26 Jul 2023CRLP/13008/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail petition filed under Section 482 CrPC praying for quashing of criminal proceedings registered under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The Court held that the petitioners misrepresented land ownership to secure an advance, justifying the criminal allegations of cheating.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 13008 of 2014 dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending in this petition also stand dismissed.

Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed, Hyd and Ano Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEE.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{13008 OF 2014}

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 Mohd. Maqbool Ahmed, S/o Late^{Lal Mohammad Occ BusinessR/o H.No.9-} 4-1 131 Cl 1 5, Tolichoki, Hyderabad

¶8

2 Said Ayesha Shabana, W/o Mohd^{MaqboolAhmed Occ HousewifeRl/o} H.No.9-4-1^'13/ C/15, Tolichoki, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED Nos.1 &2

¶10

AND

¶11

'1. The State gf Telangana, Rep.by Police Zaheerabad Town, Through Public Prosecutor' Hyderabad

¶12

...RES'.NDENT

¶13

Chokakula Venkateswara Rao, Sio^{Pentaiah Occ Business Ryo H.No.14-3-58,} Goshamahal, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶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 Courtmay} be^pleased to Quash the^{proceedingsin C.C.No.186ot 2014on the file of the} Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad.

¶16

CRLPMP. NO:^'13534 OF 2014

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the HighCourt may be} pleased to stay all further proceedings including^personal appearance of the petitioenr in C.C.No. 186 ot 2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad and^pass

¶18

CRLPMP. NO: 7698 0F 2015

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of^Cr. P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,theHigh Court may be} pleased to extend the stay granted on 24.06.2O15 in Crl.P.MP.No.1353412014ⁱⁿ Crl.P.No.13008/2014

¶20

CRLPMP. NO: 12765 OF 2015

¶21

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 extend the stay granted on 24-06-2015 in Crl.P.l,4.P No. 13534 of 2014 in Crl.P No. 1300812014.

¶22

CRLPMP. NO: 13482 OF 201s

¶23

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in lhe l\Iemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to Order for publication of Notice in Hyderabad edition of any Telugu Daily News Paper and pass such other order or orders may teem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶24

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioners and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri S.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondenl No.2.

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

-7

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 13OO8 OF 2Ol4

¶29

ORf'ER:

¶30

1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein in C.C.No.186 of 2O14 pending on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Zaheerabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 42O r lw 34 of IPC.

¶31

2 Heard Sri Ashok Anand Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri PSP Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitroners, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Sheri Prasad, learned counsei for respondent No.2.

¶32

3 The accusation against the petitioners is that the petitioners represented the second respondent tiiat they are thc absolute owners and possessors of larrd in Sy.Nos. 125123, 125/24, r25/16, t25l5, t2519, t2sl12, r2s/4, r24144. 124/48 and 49, 50, 43, 36, 47 and 12 total admeasuring Ac.138-16 guntas and they have shown document Nos.3449 of 2006 and 47 of 2OO7. Therefore, the second respondent entered into an agreement of sale dated 13.01.2007 with the petitioners to purchase tl.re land @ Rs.1,90,000/- per acre and the total sale consideration was hxed at Rs.2,59,16,000/-. The second respondent paid Rs.5O.0O lakhs

¶33

-:!

¶34

as arir':-lttt't' ilr']rount tU thi, 1,, littor.':ers and obtai;rerl aqrcerncrrt ol' sale fi-oni tirt 1',etitir:rrel s.^{'. ,} r.o L-r.1"c:rti.tn of the scconil respol]del t u/as that iro:n that Clatc Ilt( t,t:titioneis arc noI availaltle to hirn arrcl his cr.liliri.e s revealcrl ll)ai the land does not l)clilng to 'Lhe petrl,ioner:i. ilr,-ncc he lodqr rl :r complaint bellrre tl-re police ."vhictt \4ras registcred as a case in Cr.No.307 of 20i3 uncler Section 420 r/,., 34 IPC arrd alter cornpltrti,.rn ol the investigrrticn the poiice filed thr: charrrc lheet lvhicr'r uas taken on'tile;,]s rl.C.No.l3(, of 21,)1,4 b-y thc iearned ,^tLrtlrt:ierl Magistiatr. ,-rf ltirst Ckass;, Zahceraba<1.

¶35

4 l'he lcarncd couns(, for the pet-itioners vehcntentl'y' sLrllrnitt(-'d that the petitionr:;s are the aljsolute orvners of the st-lbject land ,^'l'he originai i,r oc urnenls wefii given to the second respondent^r:n the erren diirc ol e).ecution of ttre zrgreeinent of saie anr] that Llrc second responclent, after goi;eg through the same only', paid tire zrdvance arloLr n t

¶36

5 lt is thc further conter'ltio,t-l of the lea',rned counsel for the petitioners th at Clause No. i; of the erg-'reement of sale rvoulcl clearly go to sho\. lhat the sc.coll(, r('sponde t shali pay i.he balar]ce ltale consideration u'ithin si-x rronIhs from the datr: ef ;1glssrnent, but it can be extended r.t ith mutual consent of the parties. However,

¶37

¶38

Clause No.7 of the agreement^{would further shou' that ifthe} second respondent failed to^{pay the balance amount within the} time stipulated above,^{he has to pay the same with interest} 1'50 'g) ps per month till the date of registration.^{But the second} respondent never turned^{up and had also not issuedany demand} notice for execution of^{registered sale deed stating that he was} ready and wilLing to^{perform his part of contract. But afterlapse} of seven years the second^{respondent hled the present complaint} with false and bald allegations only^{to cover up his laches.}

¶39

6 The learned counsel for the^{petitionersfurthercontended} that if at all the second respondent has^{got any grievancewith} regard to the title of the^{petitioners over the subject property, the} petitioners will indemni$' the second respondent^{as per Clause} No. 10 of the agreement of sale.

¶40

7 lt is the further contention ofthe^{learned senior counsel that} the second respondent^{has no cause of action to lodge the} complaint inasmuch as the^{petitioners have not cheated or} induced the second^respondent to^{believe that they are the} absolute owrlers o[ the^{entire extentof land covered under the} agreement of sale.^He further^{submitted that the petitionersare} absolute ownEs^of land to^{sonleextent and to someextent they}

¶41

-":

¶42

:lrc agre.r'l!('lt lr.rldc,r s. I I, i,^.,.: nravcci to iillc\r, thc (.l.iiniital p{tlili()11 a.n ci quasl'r ilr,: pror:,.:c,.li;1,,s nending,agaihst rhe l)ctiticilers llofo{(l li-r, Cou l t trr lr,rr .

¶43

tl 'l'ht lr::,rrred (-or-llt(' ior tite pcfitioner.:.: reiiecl on i_he pri'ciplc: e n u;rciaterci b-y 11'r. I{.n,ble Apei< Cottrt irr tire follov.,i,g .jrlrlgrrtents^Mohammed Ibrahim^,V. State of Riharr, Mitesh I(umar. J. S.'la v. State of Karnataka2, arttT Inder Mohan Goswarrri vs. State of Uttaranchals in support oi hi,s contentions.

¶44

9 Or-r t hr: other hanrl ,^'he learned col_t,-lsel lbr the second rr:s1,oit<lenI srrbrrrittcr! th:tt rhough the petitiolt:rs are rtol Lhc o$rners oi rhc lancl covcrcrl unde: the agrecment of sale, they induced and cl-reated the sccond resnondent.

¶45

10 l3eforc arlverting to , hl nval contentioos, this Court feels it apposite to ;cl'cr to thc pr()\ rsicn of law to ascertain ,*,hether the allega.tions levr:lled again st the petitioners 1r,oul d attract the nifence crf chear-ing or not. Sct:tion 420 IpC reads thus:

¶46

Whrrcver^.:hcats iLnd thereby dishonestly induces the pcrson decerved to dciivt:r al1). property to any person, or to make, altel or dcstroy the rvholt rrr any part of a valuable securiLv, or anything which is signed ()r sealed, and which is capabte of being converted into a valualrlr: security, shall be punished with imprisonmerrt of either cies;cription for a term whictr may extend to seven l/cari, ;rnd shull al:s,, br-liable to llne.

¶47

'^{1200,118 ScC} ;:ⁱ t 20: t scc ont_i0c sc 976 '(2007) l2 scr_ / I

¶48

¶49

---=--7

¶50

11 In Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka⁽² supra)^the

¶51

Hon'ble Apex Court held at^para No.16 as^follows:

¶52

Thc Appeltants placed reliance on the^{judgmentof this Court in} case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Anr.^v. Sudha^{Seetharam and Anr} l2Ol9^{SCC OnLine SC 208).,to substantiate the abovestaied} argument. The relevant^paras referred^{are as hereunder:}

¶53

The^jurisdiction Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of^its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been^given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to consdrute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of the process of the court.

¶54

In the present case, the son of the Appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the {-lrst Respondent. The suit is pending. The lirst Respondent has hled the complaint against the Appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and neady three years from the trling of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first Respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessa,ry to consLitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the hrst Respondent against the Appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.

¶55

12 In State of Haryana V, Bhajan Lal+ the Honble Apex Court

¶56

had laid down certain guidelines where the proceedings can be

¶57

quashed, which read as under:

¶58

Where the allegations made in thc First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶59

Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other - materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, .justifying an investigation by police ofhcers Undsr -$ection 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶60

r 1992 Supp (l) SCC j35 tsC2 SCC (Cri) a26

':i.l :

()

.<br>

Whcit: litc Ll|.,,ltlr', ,t(..1^.t [ao:tt ons made in lhc Ir]R or comp)ailt lrr.rcl lhc c.id,. r. r collecreci in suppor.l of the sarle clo not disclo,( lhe comrri,.s ,r ol an), olieLrcc and rnakc or,rL a casc aqainst iil , rc(-r is(.il

¶65

Whe:-r. tlrc allc:qirii.,r , lt Ihc F-.1.R. do noi constitutc a cognizalrlt. oflcr.rct: !ur :o, \trtLrte o[ly a non - r.og]: izablc oflcnco, no investi!{itLion il pr-.r'rnirr,,l lry zr ltolice olficcr v,,i hout an ordcr ol a \l rltisLralc .is corrt, rnlrlated Un.fer Sectiou ISS(2) ol thc Clo cic.

¶66

Wh"^re the;rllegatior:r. r:r,rlt: in the FIR or cornplaint ale SO absurcl arr(l inhcrontly i,;rpr obable on the basis of rvi.rich no prlldcnt l)cr:lon can evr_'r |cacl'r a JusL conclusion that therc is sufficient rground for procer clutg against the accuse(I.

¶67

Whcrc ihcrc il an c\ Iri(.ss legal bar erlgrafted in ar-rli of the pror.isionr; of thc Code () thc concerned Act (under u,hich a crirninal 1r|occcCrnq is rnstrtutcd) to the institutior.r and continuan,:c of thc procrlr ings and/cr whcre tl.rerc is a specihc provisrorr rn thc Cocle or llrl concerned Act, providing cfficacious ledress for tlre r:r'ir''ancc ol tltc aggricved party.

¶68

Where I crimrnal pro. cr rlrng is manifestly attcndecl vurth mal:r fide zrnd/or. rvl.rcre the pr-oc r r clrng is maliciously instituted with an ultcrior rnolivc for rr'reakt:t1^,,,cngeance on the accused and wjth a view to spilc him due to pl t, iit. and personal grudgo.

¶69

13 In the light of the abor e legal principie ar-rd in touch stone of

¶70

ttre provisiorL of la'r, tltis,⁽ l{)urt is inclined to see whether the allegations made in the chalge sheet would attract the offence of cheating as deiinecl Llnder Sr'ction 42,O IPC against the petitioners.

¶71

14 As seen liom the rc(.ord, the second petitioner died on O2.O9.2O2) a,rd to that el{ect a memo was flled vide USR No.122551 ol 2022. So tht,present proceedings are pending only again st the first peliiioner.

I \

--7

15 In the instant case the petitioner could establish that they are the o\vners ar-rd title holders ol the land to an extent of Ac.3438 guntas purchased by them vide document No.3449 of 2006 dated 12.06.2OO6 Sy.Nos. 125/23, 125124, r25/16, 12515, r2519 and to an extent of Ac.9- 15 guntas vide document No.47 ol 2OO7 dated 28.12.2006 in Sy.Nos. l25lL2 of Govindpur viilage, Zaheer ab ad Mandal, Medak district.

¶77

i 6 Hou,ever, it is the case of the petitioners that they are the agreement holders from the pattadars in Sy.No. 125/4 to an extent of Ac.9-O2 guntas in Sy.No. 124 /44 and Ac.11.13 guntas in Sy.No. 124/48 and. 124149 and to an extent of Ac.3-19 gutnas in Sy.No. 124/50, to an extent ofAc.6-16 guntas in Sy.No. 125l3, to an extent of Ac.9- 16 guntas in Sy.No. 124/ 43, to an extent of Ac.531 guntas in Sy.No.124 /36, to an extent of Ac.10-18 guntas in Sy.No.l2al47, to an extent of Ac. 17-08 guntas in Sy.No.125/12, to an extent of Ac.9-O7 guntas in Sy.No. 14/45, to an extent of Ac.6-26 guntas in Sy.No. l25lI2A and also to an extent of Ac.4-28 guntas, besides registered property to an extent of Ac.9- 15 guntas, thus totaling to an extent of Ac.92-03 guntas of Govindpur village, Zaheerabad Manddal, Medak District. But the petitioners faited to produce such agreement copies before the Court to believe their verslon

J I

'-t?

)7 'lhr:r'cfor,'. ri.lilllr.l- I r,. l)clitiot'rcrs arc rc.tilt, agrcemeitt holdcrs or^,,rlr,'thei' 'lr,'i' in,trrcecl tlte corniriainant hci'r-in to pal-t u,ith an arnour)t of l-s.50.r)O lakl'is on Lhc preLcx'- thal thct' are the agreeme,lt holdcrs, riill conrr: to liglrt on15, durir-rg the oourse ttf trjal. Therc: is sonrc r:)ouci rr1;on tl^,e olvnership o1' tire petitjoirer clvcl thc scherllrle mentiorrt',1 prol)erty. In these circunrstances, ttris Court is ol ti-r c opiui,rir tLra.t it is not propc; t,r quasll the ploceeclings against I hc p('t irr,)ncr^. So far ns thc limitation a!,;pcct is conccnred, u,hen lhe cr.rL Lr t feeis that great in.justice is beir-rg caused to the de-facto conrpiainant. it is not prol)er to strictly adhr:re to the techniczil'itics and quash the proceedings at the threshold.^'l'he prinr:iplt-' l;riti i,r the^judgrnenl-s relicC on by ills leamed counscl for tl-re p('lilioner a1'e nor applicable 10 the facts and cjrcumsta:rces ol the prcscnt case.

¶83

l8 'l'herefore, rt is, rn th<' interests of justice. this C-.ourt is of the opinion that thc pef-itioner does not deserve the relief sought for.

¶84

19 In ttre result, thc' criminal petition is dismissed. Mis<'ellaneorrs [)ctitions if arrr pendin6l in this crir,rinal^petitir:n shall al:so stand disrn issed.

¶85

Sd/.V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// '"li SECTION OFFICER

¶86

To, 1 The Judicial First Class Magistrate al Zaheercbad 2 The Station House Officer, Zaheerabad Town Police Station, Medak District 3 One CC to Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 4 One CC to Sri Sheri Prasad, Advocate (OPUC) 5 Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana (OUT) b Two CD Copies kS

HIGH COURT

DATED:2610712023

ORDER

1 S rAIe <br>;.<br>t:I c\ '.r' ).
ii'l,? il 1 ii\JE ?t23
\1
. .,,A,
'i. r
. -r'' a, 1, ,
'-l-:---- __-;- ! -

¶91

CRLP.No.13008 of 2014

¶92

DISMISSING THE CRL.P.