Criminal Case Against Subsequent Purchaser Not Maintainable Merely Based On His Relation To Accused In Another Dispute Over Same Property: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has held that a criminal case is not maintainable against a subsequent purchaser of suit property, merely because the purchaser is related to the person who is accused in another dispute over the said property.Justice E.V. Venugopal also found that the de facto complainant had initiated the criminal proceeding after a lapse of almost 12 years, despite the...
The Telangana High Court has held that a criminal case is not maintainable against a subsequent purchaser of suit property, merely because the purchaser is related to the person who is accused in another dispute over the said property.
Justice E.V. Venugopal also found that the de facto complainant had initiated the criminal proceeding after a lapse of almost 12 years, despite the civil proceedings having reached finality in the year 1999, and the petitioner purchasing the suit property in 2002.
“Except the allegation that the petitioners are close relatives of A.3, no other specific allegation was made against the petitioners. The said allegation itself per se shall not invite any criminal prosecution in the absence of any specific allegation without adducing any evidence against the petitioners.”
Justice Venugopal added that the trial court ought to verify such aspects before admitting a complaint.
“Firstly, the said complaint was filed after lapse of 12 long years which is hit by Section 468 Cr.P.C and barred by limitation and the learned trial Court ought to have verified this aspect before referring the matter to the respondent police and even under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the learned trial Court ought to have recorded reasons before referring the matter to the police”
This writ petition sought to quash the proceedings which was transferred to the CCS Police Station in Hyderabad. The petitioners in this case are accused Nos. 2, 19, and 20.
The allegations against the petitioners revolve around a conspiracy involving the de facto complainant, coparceners, and one A.M. Khusro. It is claimed that they impersonated Syed Ali Mohammad and filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district, to claim agricultural lands, causing wrongful loss to the de facto complainant and his father.
The petitioners argued that they are bona fide purchasers of the property and were not involved in the alleged offence. They claimed that the complaint was filed after a significant delay, which violates the provisions of Section 468 of CrPC. They also suggested that the complainant's intention behind filing the complaint is to harass the petitioners.
On the other hand, the complainant's counsel argued that the petitioners were close relatives of the mastermind behind the property dispute and were aware of the civil proceedings and the alleged conspiracy to defraud the complainant. They claimed that the delay in filing the complaint was not intentional, but rather the result of scrutinizing the entire case.
The Bench pointed out three reasons for allowing the claim of the petitioners and quash the case against them.
Firstly, the complaint was filed after 12 years, secondly, the offence was civil in nature and lastly, numerous transactions had taken place since the alleged offence.
“So far as the petitioners are concerned, they have got into the scene only by virtue of sale deeds which have been executed in their favour upon verification that their vendors are having absolute title as on that date and by the date when the petitioners have become the bona fide purchasers of the property so much of water has flown till the complaint was filed and multiple transactions seem to have taken place.
As a result, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.
Case No. WRIT PETITION No.12428 OF 2015
Counsel for petitioner: N. Naveen Kumar
Counsel for respondent: GP for Home.