Quashed

Gampa Krishnaveni v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Mar 2023CRLP/4628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a petitioner based on a property dispute involving her husband. The Court held that the transactions were purely civil in nature, aggravated by a pending civil suit, and there was no evidence establishing criminal intent against the petitioner who was not a party to the original agreement.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 690 of 2020 against the petitioner were quashed.

Gampa Krishnaveni Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13251 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THESTATE OF TELANGANA}

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gampa Krishnaveni, Wo. Late. Gampa Mahender, Age. 46 Years,^Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 7-2-67, Shivalayam Street, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶9

... PETITION E RYACC USE D

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., P.S. Jammikunta Town, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad.

¶12

Sudam Siva Kumar, S/o. Veeresham, Age. 40 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 3-1-47, Main Road, Opposite RTC Bus Stand, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District.

¶13

...RESPON DENT/DEFACTO COM PLAI NANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminil Petition, the High Court may . *-.***I be pleased to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 690 of 2020, on the^{file of ll} Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnagar District

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

'--'",'.

'' :-_:::::=s

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 of all further^proceedings including appearance of^the petitioner in C.C. No. 690 of 2020, on the file of Hon'ble ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnagar Distt ict

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum^of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of^{Sri K} VENUMADHAV, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor^{on behalf} ofthe Respondent No. 1 and none appeared forthe Respondent^No.2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

I a ! i Ii : l i,t II , a

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶23

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4628 OF 2O22

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/Accused to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.69O of 2O2O on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad, Karimnagar District. The offences alleged against him are under Sections 420 , 406, 323 arrrd 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the record.

¶27

The 2"d respondent filed a complaint on L3.O3.2O2O alleging that an €unount of Rs.63,OO ,IL6 / - was given to the husband of the petitioner herein towards purchase of property, in pursuance of the agreement of sale entered into between the petitioner's husband and the 2"d respondent. Thereafter, though the 2"d respondent was willing to pay the

¶28

)

¶29

li i: I I I Ii II

¶30

balance sale consideration, the husband of the^petitioner did not execute the document. The said issue was taken up before the elders wherein it was agreed by the^petitioner herein and the husband to return the advance sale consideration along with an excess zunount of Rs.7 lakhs to the 2"d respondent within three months from 29.O9.2OL9. However, neither the amount was returned, nor the property was registered by taking the balance amount, for which reason, a complaint was filed.

¶31

The Police having registered the case investigated into the offences and filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 42O, 406, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire money was taken by the husband of the petitioner, however this petitioner is being prosecuted for the death of her husband. In fact, civil suit was filed for specific performance which was pending adjudication before the concerned Court vide OS.No.4 of 2O2O. In the said circumstances, proceedings have to be quashed.

¶33

-1

¶34

: I I I ,I I I J

¶35

On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the 2"d respondent rvould submit that though the amounts were taken by the husband of this petitioner, this petitioner has also given an undertaking that the amounts would be returned or the property would be registered in favour of^the 2"d respondent. He further submits that subsequently^{in the} year 2019, this petitioner is a party to an agreement to^return the amounts or register the document.^{For thd said reason,} when the amounts were taken and^{not returned,the question} of quashing the proceedings against^{this. petitionerdoes not} arise, since it is a clear case^{of cheating committed by this} petitioner.

¶36

Admittedly, civil suit^{is filed for specific performanceof} the agreement of sale dt.22.O6.2OI7. It^{is further admitted} that the entire amount of Rs.63,OO,1l6l-^{was paid to the} husband of this petitioner as on^{L2.1O.2017.The petitioneris} not a party to the agreement^{of sale dt.22.06.2017.}

¶37

B. To attract an offence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal code, it has to be established that the accused

¶38

¶39

entertained fraudulent^{intention ofcheating since the} inception of^{the transaction. The property was agreed to be} sold by the^{husband of the petitioner herein in the year 2OI7} and received the^{amount. Itcannot be said that this} petitioner had entertained^{the intentionof cheating the 2"d} respondent herein,^{when the transactionsare in between the} husband of this^{petitioner and 2"d respondent. Further,to} attract and offence^{under Section 406 of the IPC, it has to be} established that the^{amountswere entrusted to person which} was subsequently^{misappropriated.Even according to the} complaint and the^{2nd respondent, the entrustment of the} amount of Rs.63,00 ,tl6l^{-was tothe husband ofthe} petitioner and nowhere it^{is mentionedthat the petitionerwas} in any way involved in^{the sale agreement in betweenthe 2"d} respondent and the^{husband or while receivingthe amounts} on various dates tilt^{L2.1O.2O17. The ingredients of Section} 406 of IPC are lacking.

¶40

g. Learned Counsel appearing^{for the 2"d respondentwould} submit that the^{petitioner was tryrng to dispose of tl-e} property by transferring the^{property in the name of her son'}

¶41

Admittedly, a civil^{suit was filed for specific performance} of the agreement of sale dated 29.06.2017.^{Any subsequent} transaction pertaining to the said^{property would be invalid,} for the reason of pending suit before the^{Civil Court. Since} there are no specific utterances which^{are mentionedin the} complaint regarding any criminal^{intimidation,this Court} deems it appropriate to^quash the^{proceedingagainst this} petitioner. The transactions are purely civil^{in nature and the} remedy if any lies with the Civil Court wherein^{the civil suit is} already filed.

¶42

1 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is^{allowed and the} proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.69O of 2O2O^on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate^{of First Class at} Huzurabad, Karimnaga-r District, are'hereby^quashed.

¶43

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/. C.^{PRAVEEN KUMAR} ASSISTANT^REGISTR4F U-t' SECTION OFFICER

¶49

To,

¶50

The ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Huzurabad

¶51

The lllAdditional District Judge at Karimnagar

¶52

The station House officer, Jammikunta police station, Karimnagar

¶53

4' ].wg CCs to the.Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl

¶54

s One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV, Advocate tOpUCI

|lt.

aittt{; i

HIGH COURT

KS J

DATED: 06/0312023

ORDER

CRLP.N o.4628 of 2022

¶63

1 HE STA It!
o'-) 3 1 NeR 2[13
..t: I',?.lni:;-r .--,- '
- 31:*rt#fr:i

¶64

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL

¶65

PETITION

¶66

C,Yg.O ffiF

Gampa Krishnaveni v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gampa Krishnaveni 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

Mr. Chollet Madhusudhana Chary Vs the State of Telangana and Another

Polepally Pulla Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Pudota Jaya Prasad Raja Vs The State of Telangana

Thogari Hanmandlu Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Ponnala Rukmini and Another Vs The State of Telangana and Another

G.Jeevan Kumar Vs The state of Telangana and another