Section 482 Cr.P.C. Quashing of F.I.R. AGAINST A2 -A7 = offences under Sections 120-B, 386, 417, 420, 423 and 468 IPC. With regard to A2 to A7, except mentioning their names in the complaint, no specific role has been ascribed to them with regard to mis-utilization of the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney, said to have been executed by P.Venugopal Raju. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in respect of A2 to A7 in Crime No.12 of 2013 of Ganapavaram P.S. amounts to abuse of process of law.


 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Criminal Petition Nos.1915 and 1916 of 2013

 

Date:22nd April, 2013

 

 

Between:

1.Tadi Sesha Reddy & Ors.
..... Petitioners/A1 to A3 & A8
(Petitioners in Crl.P.No.1915 of 2013)
***
1. Kovvuri Venkateswara Reddy & Ors.
....Petitioners/A4 to A7
(Petitioners in Crl.P.No.1916 of 2013)
AND

 

1.State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.

.....Respondents

(In both the Crl.Ps.)

***

 


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Petition Nos.1915 and 1916 of 2013


COMMON ORDER:
                                                                       

        These two Criminal Petitions have been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.12 of 2013 of Ganapavaram Police Station, West Godavari District, to quash the proceeding therein.  More precisely, A1 to A3 and A8 are the petitioners in Crl.P.No.1915 of 2013 and A4 to A7 are the petitioners in Crl.P.No.1916 of 2013. 

2.     The 2nd respondent is the complainant.  She presented a complaint in the Court of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, on 28.09.2012, alleging, inter alia, that her husband Venugopal Raju borrowed Rs.12,40,000/- on various dates from A1 Tadi Sesha Reddy.  Her husband was made to sign on blank promissory notes, stamp papers and deliver the property documents to A1 Tadi Sesha Reddy and A8 Karri Narayana Reddy.  Her husband made part payments to a tune of Rs.3,95,000/- on various dates to A1 and A2, who are husband and wife.  A1 and A8 misused the irrevocable General Power of Attorney and executed sale deeds in respect of the property owned by her husband. A7 executed sale deeds in respect of the property owned by her husband for a consideration of Rs.4,42,500/- for the landed property worth of Rs.20,00,000/-.  A1, A3 to A6 executed sale deeds on receiving sale consideration of Rs.11,57,500/- for the property valued approximately Rs.40,00,000/- owned by her husband.  A1 fabricated an agreement of sale, dated 18.09.2010, in respect of trust property of Vegesina Suryanarayana Raju Educational Trust for a paltry consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- as if it has been executed by her husband.  Thereafter, A1 filed a suit in O.S.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru for specific performance of agreement of sale.  The property covered under the agreement of sale is a trust property.  The complaint filed by her came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Ganapavaram P.S., West Godavari District.  Thereupon, the Station House Officer, Ganapavaram P.S., registered a case in Crime No.12 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 386, 417, 420, 423 and 468 IPC.  Hence, these Criminal Petitions by the accused with the prayer stated supra.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1strespondent/State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

4.     It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused that the disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are purely civil in nature and therefore, invocation of the criminal proceedings is wholly unwarranted and it is abuse of process of law.  It is also contended by him that two suits are pending wherein disputes over the property are required to be adjudicated - one being O.S.No.66 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, which is filed by A1 for specific performance of agreement of sale and the other being O.S.No.10 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District, which is filed by the complainant for declaration of title.

5.     Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant submits that the petitioners misused the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney executed by her husband and therefore, the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the offence of cheating.  It is also submitted by the learned counsel that A1 and A8, having received the documents from the husband of the complainant as security for the loan availed by him, committed breach of trust by executing registered sale deeds basing on the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney and therefore, the further investigation in Crime No.12 of 2013 of Ganapavaram Police Station cannot be interdicted.

6.     The grievance of the 2nd respondent/complainant is that A1 and A8 having received the documents from her husband as security for the loan availed by him misused the said agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney and executed documents in favour of third parties and thereby cheated her husband.  
 After the death of her husband, she made a payment of Rs.10,000/- on 28.07.2011 to A8 at his office at Ganapavaram on the demand of A1.  

She has given the particulars of payment in her complaint and also the details of documents executed by A1 mis-utilizing the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney executed by her husband. 

The complaint averments make specific accusations against A1 and A8 with regard to          mis-utilization of the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney executed by P.Venugopal Raju.  
Various facts regarding the mis-utilization of agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney executed by P.Venugopal Raju are required to be verified during the course of investigation.  
With regard to A2 to A7, except mentioning their names in the complaint, no specific role has been ascribed to them with regard to mis-utilization of the agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney, said to have been executed by P.Venugopal Raju.  
Therefore, continuation of proceedings in respect of A2 to A7 in Crime No.12 of 2013 of Ganapavaram P.S. amounts to abuse of process of law.

7.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition No.1916 of 2013 is allowed and Criminal Petition No.1915 of 2013 is partly allowed, quashing the proceedings in Crime No.12 of 2013 of Ganapavaram Police Station, West Godavari District, in respect of A2 to A7 only.

 

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

Date:22nd April, 2013.

 

cs


 

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criminal Petition Nos.1915 and 1916 of 2013

 

 

 

 

 

Date:22nd April, 2013

 

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.