whether the second respondent can protect his possession or whether the first accused entered into the land on the ground that the second respondent did not acquire any valid right to the property are the matters which have to be decided by the civil Court. Certainly in my view, the dispute between the parties does not involve any criminal offence requiring any investigation by the police. Keeping quite for over a period of 14 years and lodging a report with the police alleging commission of offence of cheating against the accused, in my view is abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioners/accused cannot be subjected to any criminal prosecution and the parties have to work out their remedies before a civil Court. This dispute undoubtedly is purely of civil in nature and resorting to criminal prosecution in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law and if it is allowed, it will result in miscarriage of justice.


THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO        

CRL.P.NO.1076 OF 2012  

05.10.2012

Peddolla Narimulu and others

State of A.P.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Putta Krishna Reddy
                               
Counsel for respondent: The Additional Public Prosecutor

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  

?Cases referred:

ORDER:


This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A4 under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2012 of
the Chevella Police Station, Ranga Reddy District.

2.      Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A1 to A4, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent/State and
none appeared for the second respondent/de facto complainant.

3.      The brief facts of the case which is sought to be quashed are as follows:

The first accused is the owner and possessor of a piece of land covered by
Survey No.195 of an extent of Ac.2.00 situated at Nyalata Village, Chevella
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.  Out of the said land, the first accused offered
to sell an extent of 0.25 guntas to the second respondent for a consideration of
Rs.11,500/-.  The second respondent having agreed to purchase the same entered
into an agreement with the first accused on 26.01.1996 and paid the total sale
consideration.  Ever since the date of agreement, the second respondent has been
in possession and enjoyment of the said land by raising crops.  The version of
the second respondent is that since the date of agreement he has been insisting
upon the first accused to execute a registered sale deed in his favour and the
first accused has been postponing the same.  Ultimately, on 01.04.2011 the first
accused virtually refused to execute the registered sale deed and stated to the
second respondent that he executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of his sons
A2 to A4 in respect of the land in Survey No.195 and that the mutation also
effected in the name of A2 to A4.  The registered Gift Deed was allegedly
executed on 01.04.2006.

4.      With the aforesaid allegations, the second respondent lodged a report with
the police Chevella.  On the strength of the said report, the police registered
a case in Crime No.6 of 2012.  Thereafter, the petitioners/accused filed the
present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.6 of
2012 of Chevella Police Station.

5.      The question that has to be determined in the present criminal petition is
whether the FIR in Crime No. 6 of 2012 of Chevella Police Station is liable to
be quashed.

6.      Admittedly, the agreement in respect of purchase of 0.25 guntas from out
of Ac.2.00 belonging to the first accused in Survey No.195, Nyalata Village,
Chevella Mandl, Ranga Reddy District was entered into on 26.01.1996. Even if the
assertion made by the respondent that he took possession of 0.25 guntas of land
from the first accused and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the
said land is admitted, he is under a duty to obtain a regular registered sale
deed within stipulated period or within the time allowed by law.  It is true
that he can protect his possession by exercising his civil right if the law
permits him to do so.  But, to constitute a criminal offence, there must be a
dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception of the agreement
which was entered into between A1 and the second respondent on 26.01.1996.  A1
executed a registered gift deed in respect of the entire land in Survey No.195
in favour of A2 to A4, who are his sons on 01.04.2006.  Till such time the
second respondent did not take any steps to obtain any registered sale deed.  He
alleged in the complaint that he came to know about the execution of the said
registered Gift Deed dated 01.04.2006 when the first accused refused to execute
the sale deed in his favour in respect of 0.25 guntas of land in terms of the
agreement dated 26.01.1996 by stating that he executed a registered gift deed in
favour of his sons i.e. A2 to A4 in respect of land in Survey No.195.

7.      The questions viz. whether the second respondent can protect his
possession or whether the first accused entered into the land on the ground that
the second respondent did not acquire any valid right to the property are the
matters which have to be decided by the civil Court.  Certainly in my view, the
dispute between the parties does not involve any criminal offence requiring any
investigation by the police.  Keeping quite for over a period of 14 years and
lodging a report with the police alleging commission of offence of cheating
against the accused, in my view is abuse of process of law.  In the facts and
circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the
petitioners/accused cannot be subjected to any criminal prosecution and the
parties have to work out their remedies before a civil Court.  This dispute
undoubtedly is purely of civil in nature and resorting to criminal prosecution
in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law and if it is
allowed, it will result in miscarriage of justice.

8.      For the foregoing reasons, the proceedings in Crime No.6 of 2012 of
Chevella Police Station, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed against the
petitioners/A1 to A4 and the criminal petition is allowed.


__________________  
R. KANTHA RAO, J  
Date: 05.10.2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.