Allowed

Sri NimmagaddaDarahasaLahari v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023CRLP/8673/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings against bonafide purchasers of pent houses. Court held that offences under IPC Section 423 and A.P. Apartments Act Sections 24 and 28 apply only to promoters/owners, not subsequent purchasers. Matter remitted to authorities for civil action regarding demolition. Quality: thin

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri NimmagaddaDarahasaLahari Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I I \ I l I I t.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE^{G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY}

¶6

CRIM!NAL PETITION NO: 8673 OF²⁰²²

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Sri Nimmagadda Darahasa Lahari,^{S/o. LateN V Ranga Rao, aged 60 years,} Occ.Business,

¶9

2 Smt. Nirirmagadda Geetha^{Chakravarthi,Wo.Sri Nimmag_adda Darahasa} Lahari, aged 68^years, Occ.Retd.^{Employee,Both are Rl/o.Flat No.401 and} 402, Eh{e Residency, Dollor^{HillsColony, Pragathi Nagar, Kukatpally,} Hyderabad, MedchalMalkajgiri^{Dist., TS}

¶10

... PEfl fl ONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . The StatJ of Telangana, Rep.,^{by its Public Prosecutor,High-Courtfor the} State of Telangana at Hyderabad,^{throughP.S,Bachupally, Cyberabad Dist ,} rs !{!

¶13

Z. Cnirumir{riffa Venkata Ramana,^{S/o. Ch.Ramanadham,aged 55 years, Occ.} SoftwareEngineer, Fi/o; Flat No.G-1,^{Elite Residenry,Dollor Hills Colony,} Pragathi Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad,^{MM Dist., TS} ...RESPON DENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶14

!{lili

¶15

...RESPON DENT/COM PLAINANTS

¶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 maybe} pleased to call for the records relating to C C No.1404 of 2021,pending^{on the file} of the learned i nOOf. Metropolitan^{Magistrate,at Kukatpally, MedchalMalkajgiri} District, TS and^quash the same against^{the petitioner/accused No.3 and 4 and} pass such other.order or orders in the inlerest^{of justice.}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023,

¶18

¶19

Petition under Section 482 of^{Cr-P.Cpraying that in the circumstances} stated in the Mdmorandum^{of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court maybe} pleased to exteird I the interim order dated.^{2610912022passed in I A No. 1 ot 2021}

¶20

in crl., P No.8673 of 2022 lo untir furlher orders, pending disposar of the above Crl., P and pass

¶21

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 4g2 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated. 26-09-2022 passed in r A No' .r of 202r in crl., P No.8673 of 2022 to untir further orders, pending disposar of the above Crl., P and pass

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022I

¶24

t Petition under Section 492 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay a, further proceedings incruding appearance of the petitioners/accused No.3 and 4 in c.c No '1 404 of 2021, pending on the fire of the I learned X Addl.iMetroporitan Magistrate, at Kukatpalry, Medchar-Markajgiri District, TS, pending disposal of the above crimrnal petition.

¶25

This Petition conring on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu,.i Advocate for the petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, Assistant public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 a nd of Sri V.V.Raghavan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶28

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8673 of 2O22

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This Criminal Petition is liled by the petitioners/ A.3 and A,4 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. I4O4 of 2O2l registered against them for the offences under Section 423 I.P.C and Sec. 24 r/w 28 of A.P" Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987 (for short, "the Act'), including their appearance.

¶31

2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused No.s3 and 4, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-State and Sri V.V. Raghavan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 zrnd perused the record.

¶32

3 It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that private complaint, dated 21.12.2021 was filed against A1 to ,A.4 for the aforesaid offences alleging that A,1 and A2 obtained

1
I
i
l

-rlt

) CAC, ] Crl I'.No 8673 2022

¶37

permission from Gram Pirnr;hayat, Bachupalli during the year 2OO7 for construction of building consisting of G⁺ 3, but constructed thri apartments under the name of "ELITE RIISIDIINCY'' comprising of 24 flats in Bachupally village. Pragathi Nagar Gram Panchayat, Qutullabur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and sold} away all the flats in the yeat 20 12 and 2013 along with common areas to the 2"d respondent and 23 others and as such the common area is to be used and enjoyed by all the flat o\rrners under Section 9 of Apartments (Promotion of Construction and Ownership) Act, 1987. Further, accused 1 & 2 have no right or interest in the apartment after selling all 24 flats and they cannot even enter into the building without the consent of at least one flat owner and that they have no right or interest in the terrace at all.

¶38

It is further alleged that A1 and ,A'2 having no right, sold the unlawfully constructed two pent houses on the terrace of 3'd floor to ,{3 and A4 i.e., petitioners, grving flat numbers as 4O1 arrd 4O2 for

¶39

-u

¶40

r:-f,E:

¶41

3 CAC, ] Ctl.P.No.8673 2022

¶42

¶43

which the flat owners filed W.P.No.2645l of 2O2l before this Court questioning the vaJidity of construction of pent houses and the same is pending. As A1 and A2 have sold the property to ,{3 and 44, the present private complaint has been filed against A1,A2 and the petitioners/A3 and A4 under Section 423 of I.P.C and Section 24 r lw. 28 of the Act.

¶44

5 It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who are alleged as A3 and A4 in the private complaint, are bonafide purchasers of the pent house and if at a-11 the de-facto complainant/2na respondent, who is one of the flat owner, is aggrieved by the purchase made by the petitioners, he has to file a complaint against A1 and 42, but not against A'3 and A4/petitioners and that the ingredients under Section 423 of I.P.C and Sections 24 and 28 of the Act, do not attract the petitioners.

¶45

6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent had contended that A.1 and A,2 have dishonestly and fraudulently sold the property to

¶46

lrrl \ '^-iF rEl \ . IJr { LAC, ] \ ;,' CrlP No.13673 2u2-l

¶47

the petitioners/A3 ancl .\4 and that they have also the knowledge about the ltroperty and therefore they are punishable for the aJorcsaid offences.

¶48

C)n perusal o[ the record, it is evident that the de-facto complainantf 2nd respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners/A3 and 44, and that A1 and .A2 sold away all the flats i.e., 24 flats in the years 2Ol2 and 20 13. If at a_ll A1 and A2 have sold two pent houses constructed on the 3.d floor and if there is no valid license granted by the Gram Panchayat for construction of such pent houses, the Gram Palchayat would be the appropriate authorit5r to demolish the pent houses, as the matter is purely civil in nature. Therefore, the question of attracting the offences under Section 423 of I.p.C. does not arise in this case. Even from a perusal of Sections 24 and,2g of the Act, it appears the said Sections only attract only against A1 and 42, but not against the petitioners/ ,{3 and 44.

¶49

¶50

CAC,] Crl.P.No.8673 2022

Section 28 of the Act, l9g7 envisages as

¶55

under:-

¶56

"24. Offences- Any promoter or owner of the apartment who wrthout reasonable excuse fails to comply with or contravenes €rny provisions of Section4, Section S, Section 6, Section 7, Section 24, Section 25 or Section 27 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to hfty thousand nrpees or with both."

¶57

A reading of the above Section goes to show that it only attracts the promoter or the owner of the

¶58

Apartment. That means, it is against A.1 and 42, but not against the petitioners/A3 arrd A4.

¶59

9 In the sarne manner, Section 24 of the Act

¶60

envisages as under:-

¶61

"24. Prohibition of Selling, leasing and misuse of common areas and.facilities- The promoters or the owners of apartments shall not sell or lease out or misuse any cofirlnon areas and facilitres.

¶62

This Section also attracts promoters or owners of

¶63

the Apartment, but not tJ:e bonafide purchasers.

¶64

Therefore, considering the ingredients under Section 423 of I.P.C and Sections 24 and 28 of the Act, the offences under the said Sections will not attract the

¶65

¶66

::6:: CAC,] Cri P "o.8r)7.1 2O2l

¶67

petitioners/A.l and 44. Therefore, it is a fit case to

¶68

quash all the proccedings against the petitioners alone.

¶69

For the aforesaid reasons, the Criminal

¶70

Petition is a]lowed. No orcler as to costs.

¶71

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications

¶72

pending if any, shall stand closed

¶73

Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ar,,

¶74

SECTION OFFICER

¶75

To,

¶76

The X Addl. Metropolitan [Vlagistrate, Ranga Reddy Diskict., at Kukatpally

¶77

One CC to Sri Bethi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶78

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, Hlgh Court for the State of Telangana al Hyderabad (OUT) it I

¶79

Two CD Copies KK

¶80

pr q lil

HIGH COURT

GAC, J

DATED:,0810612023

ORDER CRLP.N 673 of 2022 $l

¶87

.,HE S I r(- :
c),,
(
2 B JUt'l 2$Z] t.
.. ) .,
- '-'. ,,ttt - . '''
,:-,''

¶88

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶89

G{lO
@

Sri NimmagaddaDarahasaLahari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri NimmagaddaDarahasaLahari v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muduganti Srinivas Reddy Vs Kotha Venkata Rao and Another

A.Nagarjuna Vs StateState of Telangana

Pokala Shivudu , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.M.Radha Rani and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Gaddam Ashok Kumar Vs State of Telangana

Binaboina Krishna Vs The State of Telangana