//
you're reading...
CHEQUE BOUNS CASE

6. The material brought on record indicates that petitioners 2 and 3 purchased plot bearing Nos.393 & 394 under registered sale deed from Paruchuru Atchamma. When the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant started interfering with their possession, petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.503 of 2011 and obtained ad-interim injunction on 31-1-2011 against the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent resorted to file a complaint against the petitioners as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the third petitioner. If the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant claims the property, he has to necessarily seek the relief of cancellation of sale deed standing in the name of the petitioners 2 and 3. Invocation of criminal proceedings, in the given facts and circumstances, amounts to abuse of process of law.

a photograph of anantha padmanabha swamy templ...

a photograph of anantha padmanabha swamy temple, located at ananthagiri hills,vikarabad,rangareddy district, andhra pradesh, india. తెలుగు: ఇది అనంత పద్మనాభ స్వామి గుడి యందలి గోపురము యొక్క ఛాయా చిత్రము. ఇది ఆంధ్ర ప్రదేశ్ లోని రంగారెడ్డి జిల్లా యందలి ,వికారాబాద్ సమీపమున గల అనంతగిరి కొండలపై నున్నది. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Criminal Petition No.1018 of 2012

 

(Dated : 06-03-2012)

Between:

Thota Jagannadham and two others

….Petitioners

          A n d

State of A.P., rep. by

Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP,

Hyderabad

….Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

 

Criminal Petition No.1018 of 2012

ORDER:

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused in Crime No.697 of 2011 of Uppal P.S., Hyderabad registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC to quash the proceeding therein.

2.     Notice to the 2nd respondent came to be ordered on       27-01-2012.   The petitioner was also directed to take out notice to the 2nd respondent by registered post acknowledgment due and file proof of service.  Despite service of notice on the 2nd respondent, he did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel.

3.     Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record.

4.     Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners 2 and 3 purchased house plots under registered sale deed dated 29th July, 2000 from Paruchuri Atchamma and as the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant is interfering with their possession and enjoyment, a suit being O.S.No.503 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar has been filed and ad-interim injunction has been obtained against him, vide I.A.No.1440 of 2011 in O.S.No.503 of 2011, dated 31-10-2011.  A further submission has been made that the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant after receiving notice in the suit, resorted to file a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they obtained the sale deed   from Atchamma in their favour in stead of obtaining the sale deed in favour of his wife Neelima.  A further submission has been made that the 2nd respondent resorted to initiate criminal proceedings as a counter blast to the suit filed by the petitioners 2 and 3 herein.   Learned counsel took me to the Photostat copy of the order passed in I.A.No.1440 of 2011 in O.S.No.503 of 2011 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

5.     The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before                     III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar alleging inter alia that he entered into agreement of sale with Paruchuri  Achamamba  W/o  P.Venkateswar Rao   in respect  of  Plot Nos.393 & 394 and paid total consideration to her.  However, he requested the petitioners herein to obtain registered sale deed in favour of his wife Smt. Neelima.  The petitioners instead of obtaining registered sale deeds in favour of Neelima obtained sale deeds in their favour   and thereby, cheated him.  The complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Uppal P.S under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.  Thereupon, the S.H.O., Uppal registered a case in Crime No.697 of 2011 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.  Hence this petition to quash the proceeding therein.

6.     The material brought on record indicates that petitioners 2 and 3   purchased plot bearing Nos.393 & 394 under registered sale deed from Paruchuru Atchamma.  When the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant started interfering with their possession, petitioner No.3 filed O.S.No.503 of 2011 and obtained ad-interim injunction on 31-1-2011 against the 2nd respondent.  The 2nd respondent resorted to file a complaint against the petitioners   as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the third petitioner.   If the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant claims the property, he has to necessarily seek the relief of cancellation of sale deed standing in the name of the petitioners 2 and 3.  Invocation of criminal proceedings, in the given facts and circumstances, amounts to abuse of process of law.

7.     Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.697 of 2011 of Uppal P.S., Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District.

_____________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J

Dt.06-03-2012

RAR

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: