CRLP/6440/2009 of M/s Narne Estates Pvt. ltd., Vs M/s East City Plot Holders Welfare Association, on 30 December 2011

ORDER:

1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quashproceedings in Crime No.134 of 2009, registered for offencespunishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the file of theKarkahana Police Station, Secunderabad.

2 The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-7 and the 1[st] respondentherein is the de facto complainant in the case. For the sake ofconvenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they arearrayed before the trial court.

3 The prosecution version is as follows:

T h e de facto complainant is a registered society under APSocieties Registration Act bearing Registration No.406 of 2008. Theobject of the society is the welfare of its members and to protect theirinterest. A-1-Company invited applications from the de factocomplainant-society during the year 1987 for the sale of plots in EastCity Sector I to V and also for East City extension. A-1 offered theplots at Rs.120/- per sq. yd., which comes to Rs.30,000/- per 250 sq.yds of plot. Concession was given for paying the money one time.Some extra rate was fixed for corner plots etc. It is further stated thatthe company advertised for the sale of the plots promising to providevery good amenities like Thar Roads, place for school, Play groundetc. It is also stated that A-2 who is a retired colonel used hisreputation as a person from the defence with discipline by whichdefence personnel purchased plots there. Further, Rs.150 per sq. yardwas collected as development charges. For part of the sites, GramPanchayat approval was not taken. However, though the approvalwas not there, the plots were registered. Even though long timeelapsed the ventures were not completed and the time is being extended by A-1 from year to year for the completion of the amenitiespromised by it. Further, A-1 by its letter dated 10.07.2007 informed allthe owners of the plots that the development charges skyrocketed toRs.450/- per sq. yads. and requested the members to pay thedifference at Rs.150/- per sq. yard. It is also stated that A.1 is claimingpenal interest on delayed payments and also additional developmentand maintenance charges. It is further stated that once the plot isregistered the company is not entitled to claim any additional charges. So the claim of A-1 company to pay the maintenance charges atRs.1200/- per year is not tenable as the venture is not fully completed. It also amounts to malafide method, adopted to enrich them self at thecost of the plot owners.

4 Based on the said allegations, complaint was filed before the XIAdditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, which in-turnwas referred to the police concerned under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police registered it as Cr.No.134 of 2009 on the file of Karkahanapolice station, Secundeabad under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

5 It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that nosuch offences were committed by A.1 to A.7 and if at all there is anyliability against them, it is only civil liability with regard to thedeficiencies of service and therefore, it is a fit case to be quashed.

6 There is no representation on behalf of the de facto complainant.

7 The point for consideration is whether there are sufficientgrounds to quash the proceedings impugned?

8 As there is only a question of demanding to pay additionalamount for developmental charges and maintenance charges failingwhich, to pay penal charges, I am of the opinion that there is nocriminal liability whereas there is only civil liability, which does notwarrant the prosecution of the accused.

9 For the aforesaid reasoning, this Criminal Petition is allowed andthe proceedings in Crime No.134 of 2009, registered for the offencespunishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, on the file of KarkahanaPolice Station, Secunderabad are hereby quashed.

30.12.2011Kvsn

-------------------------------------------G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J.