As per case facts, Respondent No.2 obtained a decree against Respondent No.3/A1 for a loan, leading to an auction where Respondent No.2 purchased a property. Subsequently, Respondent No.3/A1 allegedly sold ...
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.980 OF 2023
Between:
Tellamekala Rama Rao
… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Two others
...Respondents
* * * * *
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 17.06.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL :
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment/Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Order may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment/Order? Yes/No
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
2
* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
+ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.980 OF 2023
% 17.06.2026
# Between:
Tellamekala Rama Rao
… Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Two others
...Respondents
!
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Sri Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy
^
Counsel for the Respondents
:
1. Sri Arun Showri G
2. Public Prosecutor (AP)
3. T.V.P.Sai Vhiari
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. AIR 1992 SC 604.
2. (2003) 3 SCC 641.
3. (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 : (2009) 3 Supreme
Court Cases (Crl) 929 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1594.
4. (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 581 : (2008) 3 Supreme
Court Cases (Crl) 275 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 522.
This Court made the following:
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
3
Date on which Order/Judgment was
reserved
:
06.04.2026
Date on which Order/Judgment was
pronounced
:
17.06.2026
Date on which Order/Judgment was
uploaded on the website of the High
Court
:
17.06.2026
APHC010058262023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3327]
WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 980/2023
Between:
1. TELLAMEKALA RAMARAO, S/O.YEDUKONDALU, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O.2ND LANE, R.J. ASHRAM RAO,
SUDDAPALLI DONKA, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR TOWN,
GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
A N D
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY SHO,
ARUNDELPET P.S., THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
2. GONUGUNTLA SESHAIAH, S/OANANTHARAMAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, HI NDU, R/O. FLAT. NO. 307, HIMAJA
ENCLAVE, 2ND LANE, VIDYA NAGAR GUNTUR, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. GALI SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. VENKATESWARA REDDY,
A/56 YRS, 8TH LANE DWARAKA NAGAR, AMARAVATHI
ROAD, GUNTUR.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of
BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of
Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No. 55 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of
1st class for Railways, Guntur, Guntur District against the petitioner/
accused No-2 and to pass
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
4
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying
that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of
Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further
proceedings including the appearance of the Petitioner/Accused No-2
in C.C. No. 55 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st class for
Railways, Guntur, Guntur District against the Petitioner/Accused
pending disposal of the main criminal petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:
1. GAJJALA MALLIKARJUNA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. ARUN SHOWRI G
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
3. T V P SAI VIHARI
The Court made the following:
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 980 OF 2023
O R D E R
This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioner/
Accused No.2, to quash the charge sheet in Calendar Case No.55 of
2020 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class for Railways, Guntur, arising out of a case in Crime No.392 of
2016 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur Urban, registered against
the petitioner/Accused No.2 and other accused, for the offences
punishable under Section 468, 470 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).
2. Contents of the charge sheet, in brief, are that respondent
No.2/de facto complainant is resident of Vidyanagar, Guntur and eking
out his livelihood by doing business; that respondent No.3/A1 availed
loan of Rs.65,000/- from respondent No.2/de facto complainant by
executing a promissory note, and when respondent No.3/A1 failed to
repay the same, respondent No.2/de facto complainant got filed
Original Suit No.347 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Guntur for recovery of suit amount of Rs.79,625/- along
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
6
with interest; that the said suit was decreed in favour of respondent
No.2/de facto complainant on 18.02.1999; that the respondent No.2/
de facto complainant got filed E.P.No.293 of 2000 in O.S.No.347 of
1997 and got attached the house property to an extent of 156 square
yards situated in Door No.4-19-111/1, 5
th
lane, Vikas Nagar Guntur;
that the Executing Court conducted auction the house property on
27.10.2004 and the respondent No.2/de facto complainant became the
highest bidder; that the Executing Court issued Sale Certificate and
directed the Sub-Registrar, Guntur for registration of sale pertaining to
the house property; that when the Court Amin went to schedule house
property to deliver the property to the respondent No.2/de facto
complainant, the respondent No.3/A1 raised objection.
(b) During the pendency of O.S.No.347 of 1997, the wife and
sons of respondent No.3/A1 were alleged to have filed a collusive suit
vide O.S.No.307 of 1998 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Guntur for Partition, and the said suit was preliminarily decreed
and later obtained Final Decree and allotted the properties to the minor
sons of respondent No.3/A1.
(c) Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment passed in
O.S.No.347 of 1997, the respondent No.3/A1 preferred appeal vide
Appeal Suit No.30 of 2014 on the file of the learned IV Additional
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
7
District Judge, Guntur, and the said appeal was dismissed on
23.09.2015; that subsequent to dismissal of appeal suit, when the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant got filed an application before
the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for delivery of house
property, the Court Amin delivered the possession accordingly; that
while the matter stood thus, respondent No.3/A1 was alleged to have
sold the house property by creating a fake Sale Deed in favour of
accused No.2 vide Document No.6079/2015, with a dishonest intention
to grab the property; that accused Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have
conspired together, mutated the name of A2 and got obtained
Electricity Service Connection No.1122500063788.
(d) Accused No.2 got filed O.S.No.479 of 2016 on the file of
the learned V Additional District Judge, Guntur, against the respondent
No.2/de facto complainant seeking the relief of Declaration; that
accused No.2, with a dishonest intention, was alleged to have created
Class I charge over the house property, availed loan of Rs.65.00 lakhs
from the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, HB Colony Branch, Nallapadu.
The case was reported to police on 22.12.2016 and a case in Crime
No.392 of 2016 was registered against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for
the aforesaid offences and investigated into. After completion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer filed Charge Sheet. The accused
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
8
Nos.1 and 2 were alleged to have conspired together in making forged
documents, used them as genuine one and cheating the respondent
No.2/de facto complainant. Hence, the Charge Sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 would contend that
even if the allegations in the charge sheet are taken, they does not
constitute any offence as against the petitioner/A2. The respondent
No.2/de facto complainant due to grudge over the petitioner/A2 and to
harass him, the present case is foisted against him by making false,
frivolous, vexatious allegations with ill-motive. Learned counsel further
contends that the petitioner/A2 purchased the house property from
respondent No.3/A1 under Registered Sale Deed vide
Doc.No.6079/2015 of SRO Koritepadu, Guntur and since then he has
been in absolute possession of the said schedule house property.
According to learned counsel, the petitioner/A2 obtained the bank loan
from Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Nallapadu Branch, Guntur by
keeping the schedule property as a collateral security and the bank
authorities, after verifying the documents, and after obtaining legal
opinion, sanctioned loan of Rs.65.00 lakhs in the month of November,
2015 and the loan transaction was also registered by depositing title
deed vide Doc.No.7219/2015, dated 25.11.2015.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
9
Learned counsel would further contend that the respondent
No.2/de facto complainant kept silent till 2016 for delivery of
possession, which itself shows mala fide and suspicious intention on
his part and the delivery of possession of house property by the Court
was on 05.08.2016 i.e. which is subsequent to his purchase. It is
further contended that the alleged Registration entry dated 03.11.2016
in favour of respondent No.2/de facto complainant is not valid in the
eye of law, as the purchase of schedule house property by petitioner/
A2 under Registered Sale Deed was much prior to the said
registration. According to learned counsel, the respondent No.2/
de facto complainant only to cause loss to the petitioner/A2 and to gain
unlawfully, and to harass the petitioner/A2, filed the present case and if
the proceedings are allowed to be continued, the petitioner/A2 would
suffer grave injustice. Hence, it is prayed to quash the charge sheet.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de facto
complainant would contend that the delivery warrant in respect of the
schedule property was issued on 05.08.2016, as the appeal against
the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.347 of 1997 was dismissed on
23.09.2015 and in the meantime, the respondent No.3/A1, conspired
with the petitioner/A2, with a dishonest intention to grab the schedule
house property, created a fake Sale Deed in favour of petitioner/A2
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
10
vide Doc.No.6079/2015 only to defeat the claim of respondent No.2/
de facto complainant. Learned counsel would further contend that the
dishonest intention of petitioner/A2 to cheat the respondent No.2/
de facto complainant by conspiring together with respondent No.3/A1,
is very much clear, and that there are specific overt acts to connect the
petitioner/A2 to the alleged offences and they are disputed questions
of fact, which cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/A1 would
contend that the transaction occurred between the petitioner/A2 and
respondent No.3/A1 in respect of the sale of house property under
Registered Sale Deed vide Document No.6079/2015 of SRO,
Koritapadu, Guntur Town on 30.09.2015 is valid and the allegations
levelled as against the respondent No.3/A1 that he conspired together
with the petitioner/A2 is far away from truth.
6. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State
representing the respondent No.1 concurred with the submission made
by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/de facto complainant
and prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A2, learned
Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/R1, learned counsel
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
11
for respondent No.2/de facto complainant, and learned counsel for the
respondent No.3/A1. Perused the entire material available on record.
8. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of
process of Court or to give effect to any order under the Code or to
secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that
the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare
cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana v.
Ch.Bhajanlal and Ors.
1
, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as
under:
“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
1
AIR 1992 SC 604.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
12
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are
so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
13
9. Section 417 of IPC prescribes punishment for cheating.
Section 415 of IPC defines ‘cheating’. The essential ingredients to
attract the offence of cheating are –
(1) Deception of any person;
(2)(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-
(i) to deliver any property to any person; or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain
property; or
(b) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to
cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind,
reputation or property.”
First part of the offence of cheating would relate to property and
second limb of the provision would not relate to the property. That the
person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do
a thing. In the second part inducing must be intentional and a guilty
intention is essential ingredient for the offence of cheating.
10. To attract the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC, there should be dishonest intention to cheat the others right from
the beginning. The word ‘cheating’ is defined under Section 415 of
IPC, which is extracted as under:
“415. Cheating. – Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
14
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to „cheat‟.”
The essential ingredients to attract an offence punishable under
Section 420 of IPC, which is an aggravated form of an offence are
Section 417, are dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make,
alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or
signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security, and
mens rea of the accused at the time of making inducement. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Narayan v. CBI
2
held that Section 420
of IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients; deception
of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to
deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall
retain any property. To put it differently, the ingredients of the offence
are that the person deceived delivers to someone a valuable security
or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that
such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having
been deceived by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently
or dishonestly when so inducing the person. To constitute the offence
2
(2003) 3 SCC 641.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
15
of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express
words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of the
transaction itself.
11. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 468
of IPC are that the accused must have made, signed, or altered a
document or electronic record dishonestly or fraudulently. The forged
document must be created with the deliberate intention to deceive
another party, leading to potential wrongful gain or loss, and the
perpetrator must intend that the forged document be used for the
purpose of cheating. Section 470 of IPC defines a forged document as
a false document made by forgery. The term ‘forgery’ used in these
two sections is defined in Section 463 of IPC. Whoever makes any
false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or
to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person
to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or
with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed,
commits forgery. It is closely linked to Section 471 of IPC, which deals
with using such documents as genuine, and requires proof that the
document was created or altered dishonestly or fraudulently.
12. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that
admittedly, the respondent No.2/de facto complainant filed O.S.No.347
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
16
of 1997 against respondent No.3/A1 on the file of the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for recovery of suit amount of Rs.79,625/-.
As per the contents of the charge sheet, the said suit was decreed in
favour of respondent No.2/de facto complainant on 18.02.1999, and for
realization of the said decretal amount, the respondent No.2/de facto
complainant got filed E.P.No.293 of 2000 on the file of the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. According to learned counsel for
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant, the schedule house
property which is in an extent of 156 square yards situated in Door
No.4-19-111/1, 5
th
lane, Vikas Nagar, was got attached to the aforesaid
EP proceedings and the Executing Court conducted auction over the
said property on 27.10.2004, in which the respondent No.2/de facto
complainant was the highest bidder, and accordingly, the Executing
Court issued Sale Certificate in respect of the schedule house property
in favour of respondent No.2/de facto complainant.
13. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet goes to
show that during the pendency of O.S.No.347 of 1997, the wife and
sons of respondent No.3/A1 got filed O.S.No.307 of 1998 on the file of
the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur for the relief of Partition,
contending that the schedule house property, which was attached to
E.P.No.293 of 2000 in O.S.No.347 of 1997, is their ancestral property.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
17
As per the contents of the charge sheet the said suit was preliminary
decreed, and was also decreed finally as per the Order in I.A.No.1178
of 2002, dated 03.03.2003.
14. A perusal of the contents of the charge sheet further goes
to show that the Executing Court issued Delivery Warrant on
05.08.2016 and he was said to have visited the schedule house
property on 10.08.2016 and delivered possession of property to
respondent No.2/de facto complainant in the presence of L.W2/
Devarapalli Srinivasarao, L.W3/Katragadda Rama Krishna Prasad,
L.W4/Bodi Babu Narendra Prasad and L.W5/Katragadda Sivaji.
15. In this regard, a perusal of the statements of L.W2/
Devarapalli Srinivasarao, L.W3/Katragadda Rama Krishna Prasad,
L.W4/Bodi Babu Narendra Prasad and L.W5/Katragadda Sivaji
recorded under Section 161 of CrPC goes to show that the Court Amin
handed over the vacant possession of schedule house property to the
respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Their statements prima facie
does not disclose any act to connect the petitioner/A2 to the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 470 of IPC.
16. A perusal of the additional material papers got filed by the
petitioner/A2 goes to show that the petitioner/A2 filed O.S.No.479 of
2016 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Guntur against the
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
18
respondent No.2/de facto complainant, accused No.1 and the Sub-
Registrar, SRO, Koritapadu, Guntur, seeking the relief of Declaration
over the schedule house property, recovery of possession and other
reliefs. The contention taken by the petitioner/A2, who is plaintiff in
O.S.No.479 of 2016 in the said suit was, he purchased the schedule
house property for a total sale consideration of Rs.25,03,000/- under
Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.6079/2015 of SRO, Koritapadu,
Guntur Town on 30.09.2015. According to petitioner/A2, at the time of
registration, there were no encumbrances over the schedule house
property. It is the contention of petitioner/A2 that subsequently he
came to know that the respondent No.2/ de facto complainant
purchased the schedule house property in the Court Auction
conducted by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur on
05.04.2004 in E.P.No.293 of 2000 in O.S.No.347/1997 in consequent
to the decree, dated 18.02.1999 passed in O.S.No.347 of 1997 in
favour of respondent No.2/de facto complainant. It was also contended
in the said suit proceedings that the delivery of possession in favour of
respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who is Defendant No.1 in
O.S.No.479 of 2016, is a paper delivery and he is never in possession
and enjoyment of the schedule house property.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
19
17. This Court perused the entire material on record placed by
either of the parties. As per the version of petitioner/A2, he purchased
the schedule house property from respondent No.3/A1 on 30.09.2015.
As per the contents of the charge sheet, the court auction, in respect of
the same schedule house property, though conducted on 25.10.2004,
delivery of possession of the same was made on 05.08.2016 i.e.
subsequent to Registered Sale Deed vide Doc.No.6079/2015, dated
30.09.2015 which was executed between the petitioner/A2 and
respondent No.3/A1. Therefore, it can be inferred that the respondent
No.3/A1 is having knowledge that the schedule house property was
once auctioned in the Court, and knowing fully well that the said house
property was got attached and it is under litigation, sold the same to
the petitioner/A2 under Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015.
However, merely, because respondent No.3/A1 is having knowledge, it
cannot be inferred that the petitioner/A2 is also well aware of the said
fact and conspiracy cannot be attributed to the petitioner/A2 that he
conspired together with respondent No.3/A1, for the reason that, soon
after knowing the fact that the schedule house property was auctioned
in Court and the same was purchased by respondent No.2/de facto
complainant and delivered the possession on 05.08.2016, the
petitioner/A2 filed O.S.No.479 of 2016 on the file of the V Additional
District Judge, Guntur against the respondent No.2/de facto
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
20
complainant, A1 and others, seeking the relief of Declaration over the
schedule house property and recovery of possession.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 would contend that
there is no averment or allegation in the charge sheet that the
petitioner/A2 made any false and fraudulent representation and made
the respondent No.2/de facto complainant to part with money, property
or act to his detriment and therefore, no case of cheating and forgery
under Sections 420, 468 and 470 of IPC are made out. He placed
strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Mohammed
Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another
3
, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.20 to 23)
“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property
claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser
under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheating him by
making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced
him to part with the sale consideration. But, in this case the
complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser
is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the
accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading
representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case
that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to
deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any
person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did
3
(2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751 : (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 929 : 2009 SCC
OnLine SC 1594.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
21
the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the
complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in
favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of
being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason
of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale
deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415
are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence
punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a
person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his
property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery,
we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never
be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it
does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who
purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the
purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent
act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the
deed may not be able to make such complaint.”
Learned counsel also placed reliance on the proposition of law
laid down in Sheila Sebastian v. R.Jawaharaj and another
4
, wherein,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: (paragraph Nos.25 and 30)
“25. Keeping in view the strict interpretation of penal statute
i.e. referring to rule of interpretation wherein natural inferences are
preferred, we observe that a charge of forgery cannot be imposed
on a person who is not the maker of the same. As held in plethora of
cases, making of a document is different than causing it to be made.
4
(2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 581 : (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 275 : 2018
(SCC OnLine SC 522.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
22
As Explanation 2 to Section 464 further clarifies that, for constituting
an offence under Section 464 it is imperative that a false document
is make and the accused person is the maker of the same,
otherwise the accused person is not liable for the offence of forgery.
30. Although we acknowledge the appellant‟s plight who
has suffered due to alleged acts of forgery, but we are not able to
appreciate the appellant‟s contentions as a penal statute cannot be
expanded by using implications. Section 464 IPC makes it clear that
only the one who makes a false document can be held liable under
the aforesaid provision. It must be borne in mind that, where there
exists no ambiguity, there lies no scope for interpretation. The
contentions of the appellant are contrary to the provision and
contrary to the settled law. The prosecution could not succeed to
prove the offence of forgery by adducing cogent and reliable
evidence. Apart from that, it is not as though the appellant is
remediless. She has common law remedy of instituting a suit
challenging the validity and binding nature of the mortgage deed
and it is brought to our notice that already the competent civil Court
has cancelled the mortgage deed and the appellant got back the
property.”
19. In the case on hand also, the petitioner/A2 purchased the
schedule house property from respondent No.3/A1 under a Registered
Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015, and thereafter, he availed loan from the
Bank, but, subsequently in the year 2016, the Executing Court passed
an Order holding that the schedule house property belonged to some
other person but not respondent No.3/A1. Even accepting the entire
allegations, the petitioner/A2 is a bonafide purchaser, for the reason
that, as on the date of purchase of schedule house property, as per the
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
23
Encumbrance Certificate filed by the petitioner/A2, the schedule house
property stands in the name of respondent No.3/A1. Prima facie, there
is no material on record to believe that the petitioner/A2 that by the act
of purchasing the schedule house property from the respondent
No.3/A1, deceived the respondent No.2/de facto complainant. Indeed,
it is the respondent No.3/A1, who is aware of the fact of schedule
house property was being auctioned by the Court. Therefore, it can be
inferred that the all the material allegations are pointing towards
respondent No.3/A1 and prima facie there is no material on record to
connect the petitioner/A2 to the alleged offences. When such being the
case, continuing the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 is nothing
but abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations made in the
charge sheet, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the petitioner/A2, and on that ground alone, this Court is
inclined to quash the impugned proceedings.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings in Calendar Case No.55 of 2020 pending on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur, against
the petitioner/A2, are quashed.
SRK, J
Crl.P.No.980 of 2023
24
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
17
th
June, 2026.
Note:
LR Copy to be marked.
B/o.
DNB
This pivotal ruling, the Criminal Petition No. 980 of 2023, from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati judgment, is now a key reference point on CaseOn, highlighting crucial aspects of quashing criminal proceedings in complex property disputes. This analysis delves into the High Court's reasoning, offering valuable insights for legal practitioners and students alike.
The case originated from a long-standing property dispute. The de facto complainant (Respondent No. 2) had secured a decree in O.S.No.347 of 1997 against Respondent No. 3/A1 for a loan of Rs. 65,000/-, which grew to Rs. 79,625/- with interest. Subsequently, in 2000, E.P.No.293 was filed, leading to the attachment and auction of A1's house property (156 square yards). The de facto complainant emerged as the highest bidder in 2004, receiving a Sale Certificate.
However, during the pendency of O.S.No.347, A1's wife and sons filed a collusive partition suit (O.S.No.307 of 1998), claiming the property was ancestral. This suit was eventually decreed, allotting properties to A1's minor sons. A1’s appeal against the original decree (Appeal Suit No. 30 of 2014) was dismissed in 2015.
Amidst these civil proceedings, the de facto complainant alleged that A1, in conspiracy with the petitioner (A2), created a 'fake' Sale Deed (Doc.No.6079/2015) in favour of A2 in September 2015 to dishonestly grab the property. Following this, A2’s name was mutated, and an electricity connection was obtained. A2 also filed O.S.No.479 of 2016 for declaration of ownership and obtained a loan of Rs. 65 lakhs from Kotak Mahindra Bank by creating a charge on the property.
The de facto complainant then reported the matter to the police in December 2016, leading to Crime No. 392 of 2016 being registered against A1 and A2 under Sections 468 (forgery for cheating), 470 (forged document), and 420 (cheating) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A charge sheet was subsequently filed.
The core legal question before the High Court was whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner (A2), who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the property through a registered sale deed, could be quashed, particularly when there was no direct evidence of their involvement in a conspiracy or dishonest intention to deceive the de facto complainant.
The High Court relied on several established legal principles and precedents:
The High Court meticulously examined the facts in light of the legal principles. It noted that the petitioner (A2) purchased the property from A1 via a registered sale deed on September 30, 2015. Significantly, the delivery of possession to the de facto complainant by the Executing Court occurred later, on August 5, 2016.
The Court acknowledged that A1 might have had knowledge of the property being auctioned and under litigation when selling it to A2. However, it found no material on record to suggest that A2 was aware of these facts or that A2 had any dishonest intention to deceive the de facto complainant. The Encumbrance Certificate filed by A2 showed the property in A1's name at the time of purchase, supporting A2's claim of being a bona fide purchaser.
Crucially, the Court observed that A2, upon learning of the court auction and the de facto complainant's purchase and possession, promptly filed O.S.No.479 of 2016 for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession. This action contradicted the narrative of a conspirator, suggesting A2 was also a victim of circumstances or a party to a civil dispute rather than a criminal one.
The statements of the eyewitnesses (L.W2 to L.W5) regarding the delivery of possession did not disclose any act connecting A2 to the alleged offenses under Sections 420, 468, and 470 of the IPC. The Court emphasized that there were no averments or allegations in the charge sheet that A2 made any false representation or induced the de facto complainant to suffer detriment.
Legal professionals seeking quick insights into such complex cases can benefit from CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs, which distill the essence of these rulings for efficient analysis, offering a concise overview of the Criminal Petition No. 980 of 2023.
Referencing Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, the Court reiterated that if a person sells property knowing it doesn't belong to them, the defrauded purchaser may complain of cheating, but a third party (like the de facto complainant here, as A2 was the purchaser) might not be able to make such a complaint for cheating against the purchaser (A2).
Therefore, the High Court concluded that while allegations pointed towards A1, there was no prima facie material to connect A2 to the alleged offenses. Continuing the proceedings against A2 would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
Based on its analysis, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petition. It quashed the proceedings in Calendar Case No. 55 of 2020 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur, against the petitioner/A2. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Criminal Petition were also closed.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashed the criminal proceedings against Petitioner A2 in a property dispute, finding no prima facie evidence to connect him with the alleged offenses of cheating and forgery. The Court noted that A2 acted as a bona fide purchaser, acquiring the property via a registered sale deed before the de facto complainant received formal possession, and subsequently pursued civil remedies. The absence of direct evidence linking A2 to any dishonest intent or conspiracy, particularly in light of A2's proactive civil suit, led the Court to conclude that continuing criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the legal process.
This judgment serves as a critical precedent for understanding the limits of criminal liability in property disputes, especially concerning allegations of cheating and forgery. For lawyers, it reinforces the importance of demonstrating direct dishonest intent (mens rea) and overt acts for criminal charges to stand. It clarifies that a bona fide purchaser, even in a contested property scenario, may not be automatically implicated in criminal conspiracy without concrete evidence of their fraudulent involvement. For law students, this case provides an excellent example of the application of Section 482 CrPC and the stringent interpretation of IPC sections related to cheating and forgery, particularly the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offenses in complex property transactions. It underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of criminal law for what are essentially civil disputes.
All information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....