CRLP/16235/2014 of A. Sashank Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2014

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is A-1, filed the present application underSections 438 CrPC seeking release in the event of hisarrest inconnection with Crime No. 144 of 2014 of Osmania University PoliceStation, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable underSections 420 and 406 IPC. Originally, a private complaint was filedunder Section 200 CrPC, which was referred to police under Section156(3) CrPC.

The case of prosecution is that the complainant purchased FlatNo.202 in Sri Krishna Avanti Apartments, Street No.5, Lane No.1,Sadasiva Nagar, Secunderabad, admeasuring 925 sq. ft. includingcommon area and parking area along with undivided share of land 28sq. yards out of 600 sq. yards from his vendor by name Mrs M.Sarithafor a valid sale consideration vide document bearing No.2053/2013which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Marredpally,Secunderbad on 22.07.2013. The averments in the report disclosethat soon before purchase of the Flat, the complainant enquired withher vendor (A-2) with regard to any encumbrances and charges overthe property. For which A-2 assured that the schedule property is freefrom all encumbrances and charges. When the complainantdemanded to show the original title deeds of the land, A-2 brought A-1to the above said apartment where A-1 stated to the complainant thatthe main documents are in safe custody. So saying he is alleged tohave shown some fabricated documents stating that the originals willbe handedover to the Association in due course of time. Believing theversion of both the accused, the complainant purchased the aboveapartment. Within a month thereafter, the officials of Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Hyderabad, inspected the apartment, distributed Form No.8 and 9 stating that the title deeds of the apartmentare pledged with the Bank by A-1 as he took loan from them. Subsequently, the demand loan was settled down in one timesettlement and A-1 was made liable to pay some amount.It is allegedthat the builder i.e., A-1 and the vendor of complainant i.e., A-2 herein,deliberately conspired together and sold away the above said propertywith a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant causing wrongfulloss to him. Basing on these allegations, the above report came to belodged.

The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that evenaccepting the allegations in the report to be true no offence is made outagainst the petitioner. According to him, the link documents of theproperty are deposited with the Bank and there was one timesettlement for payment of the amount. It is stated that the accusedshall pay the amount shortly and as such he may be grantedanticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contendingthat the petitioner not only mortgaged the above flat but alsomortgaged the other few flats which were purchased by otherwitnesses and that he is due to the Bank a sum of Rs.63 lakhs. In viewof the above, he submits that the conduct of the petitioner prima facieshows that he along with A-2 conspired and sold away the flats.

A perusal of the material placed before this Court moreparticularly the statement of L.W.1 would show that at the time ofpurchase of the Flat from A-2, she enquired about the mortgages orcharges if any over the property, for which A-2 is alleged to havebrought A-1, who is alleged to have stated that the original documentsare in safe custody and the said documents will be handedover theAssociation in due course of time. Since A-1 is the builder-cum-developer, the complainant believed the version and purchased the

said Flat from A-2. Subsequently, as stated above, the Bank officialsdisclosed to the complainant that a loan was taken by the petitioner bymortgaging the said property. The learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the complainant should have seen all the documentsbefore purchasing the property. Having purchased the property andgot the same registered, she cannot now complain with regard to thetitle of the said flat. It is true that the complainant ought to haveverified, but here is a case where the complainant was made tobelieve that the property is free from all encumbrances and chargesand that by fabricating the documents, the complainant was made tobelieve that the original documents are in his custody.

In view of the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, the petitioner, if so advisedshall appear before the concerned court and move an applicationseeking regular bail after giving prior notice to the Public Prosecutorand in such an event the concerned Court shall deal with the same onmerits in accordance with law either on the same day or at the earliest.

With the above direction, the criminal petition is disposed of.

________________________

JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR