WP/21319/2019 of Kurra Subhashini, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2019

ORDER:

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, questioning the action of the respondents, more particularly the action of 4[th] respondent in not registering the crime on petitioner’s complaint dated 25-11-2019 submitted to the 3[rd] respondent, which was in turn forwarded to the 4[th] respondent, complaining the criminal acts committed by the 5[th] respondent, and declare the same as illegal, irregular and amounts to non-discharge of public duty of respondent under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently issue a direction to register the crime and investigate into.

The petitioner is the resident of D.No.13-6-67, Malleswara Swamy Street, Pinpadu, Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District, claiming that she is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.34 cents in Sy.No.183-9A and another extent of Ac.0.43 cents in Sy.No.184-7A, total being an extent of Ac.0.77 cents, situated in Chinthalapudi Village of Duggirala Mandal, Guntur District. When the petitioner intended to sell the same for the purpose of medical expenses of the petitioner’s husband, the 5[th] respondent came to know about the same and approached the petitioner, offered to purchase the land of an extent of Ac.0.77 cents. The 5[th] respondent played fraud and induced the petitioner to execute sale deed and obtained registered document for Ac.0.77 cents in his name by way of registered sale deed dated 23-01-2017 bearing document No.270/2017. Since the petitioner’s husband was suffering from cancer, she was in dire need for money for his treatment. As there were no immediate purchasers available, she believed the words of the 5[th] respondent and executed sale deed in favour of 5[th] respondent, without receiving sale consideration from him. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the 5[th] respondent has registered the said extent of Ac.0.77 cents in favour of some others under a registered sale deed dated 23-10-2017. When the petitioner demanded the 5[th] respondent to pay the amount, he threatened her with dire consequences.

It is further contended that the 5[th] respondent is a man of desperate character and involved in many criminal cases such as Cr.No.193/2014 of Tenali III Town Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and Cr.No.67/2005 of Vinukonda Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 364-A, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC and 25(1)(A) of Arms Act. As the 5[th] respondent failed to pay the amount and fraudulently induced the petitioner to execute sale deed, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police, but no action was taken by 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents, and therefore requested to issue a direction.

During hearing, learned counsel for petitioner drawn the attention of this Court to the written complaint dated 25-11-2019 given by the petitioner to establish that the 5[th] respondent committed a cognizable offence and thereby on receipt of complaint, the police are under obligation to register a crime and investigate into the offence. The police officers have to discharge their public duty and failed to discharge their public duty being Public Officers, thereby requested to issue a Writ of Mandamus.

Whereas, the learned Government Pleader for Home contended that the complaint at best discloses the information about the commission of cognizable offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, as he threatened the petitioner with dire consequences, and the other part of the allegations of the complaint may attract a civil dispute and no cognizable offence is made out in the complaint. Therefore, non-registration of crime cannot be held to be the failure of the Public Officers to discharge their public duty for issue of Writ of Mandamus, and requested to dismiss the petition.

In view of the serious allegations made in the complaint against the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents by this petitioner, it is appropriate to extract the complaint lodged with the 3[rd] respondent, who in turn forwarded the same to the 4[th] respondent, and it is extracted here under:- “I am the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.77 cents, situated in Chinthalapudi Village of Duggirala Mandal in Guntur District. I intended to sell the same for the purpose of hospital expenses of my husband. One Shaik Ismail, S/o Kasim, R/o Pandurangapet, Tenali Town came to know about the same and approached me to purchase my said land of an extent of Ac.0.77 cents. He played fraud and induced me to execute sale deed, so that he would pay the sale amount after the registration of the sale deed and got registered the said land of extent of Ac.0.77 cents in his name through registered sale deed on 23-01-2017. I believed the fraudulent words of Shaik Ismail and executed sale deed, without receiving sale consideration under bona fide impression that Shaik Ismail would not deceive us. After enquiry I came to know that he sold my property to others. Then, I along with my husband went to Shaik Ismail and demanded him to pay the sale consideration to me. Then he threatened us that he does not have to pay any money to me and also threatened that he has a criminal history and no one can take action against him. All the words he stated in the presence of elders.

cents, situated in Chinthalapudi Village of Duggirala Mandal in Guntur District.

Hence, I pray that kindly enquire the matter and pleased to punish him and do justice to us.”

A bare look at the contents of the complaint lodged with the police, do not disclose any information about commission of non-cognizable offence punishable under Section 506 IPC i.e., ‘Criminal Intimidation’ as defined under Section 502 IPC. The other part of the complaint regarding non-payment of the amount after execution of registered document may at best give rise to cause of action for civil dispute for recovery of amount i.e., sale consideration and it could not give rise to cause of action for registration of any crime, since the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC is not a cognizable offence, there is no illegality on the part of the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents i.e., the failure to register a crime against the 5[th] respondent and consequently there is nothing to issue a direction leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the competent Court either on civil or criminal side, by filing a suit in Civil Court or by filing a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

With the above observations, this Writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

___________________________________

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 31-12-2019

IS

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Writ Petition No.21319 of 2019

Date: 31.12.2019

IS