K SURENDER REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANAGANA
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-100
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 18,2019

K Surender Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Telanagana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.)The petitioner K.Surender Reddy is the 1st accused among 3 accused in CC.No.1092 of 2014 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate at LB Nagar which is outcome of crime No.563 of 2014 dated 04.08.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 IPC registered by Cyberabad PS from the private complaint of the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant by name K.Nagaraju referred by learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in registration of the crime which reads that in 2008 accused persons 1 to 3 approached the complainant to join as venture partner saying lack of funds with them and thereby they all decided to purchase lands at Goplaram Kalan Village of Medak and entered into MOU dated 16.08.2008 in the presence of Govardhan Reddy-LW.2, Anil Kumar-LW.3, for the land agreements and plot registration and office management pertains to that venture, that they invested amounts and later A1 and A2 retired from the venture and merged their share to A3, on 16.02.2009 another MOU entered between A1 to A3 and complainant. On 30.09.2010 complainant and A3 Someshwar Raju entered into agreement/undertaking for completion of the pending works from the agreement of 2014, that A1 to A3 passed resolution dated 10.05.2014 stating the complainant representing in the firm as venture partner and he is not partner of the firm and thereafter they have executed sale deeds in favour of Elitem Ramesh and Dappu Jayamma on 16.06.2014 and 30.06.2014 without knowledge of complainant and complainant went to office on 16.07.2014 on which they gave adamant reply and threatened with dire consequences including the threats over phone with dire consequences by A1 on 19.07.2014. The police after investigation filed charge sheet by citing 6 witnesses including LW.4 to 6-IOs and LW.1-defacto complainant and LW.2 & 3 witnesses referred supra of the agreement dated 16.08.2008. The learned Magistrate therefrom taken cognizance against the 3 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC, same is impugnment herein.
(2.)The sum and substance of the police final report while referring to the FIR supra speaks that A1 is Managing Partner and A.2 and A.3 partners of Suryodaya Venture & Constructions a registered partnership firm No.850/2014 of Hyderabad, they approached due to lack of funds the complainant to join him as venture partner and to utilize his vast experience in the real estate activities and he agreed for the venture of Gopularam known as Brundavanam Venture but not in main partnership firm that subsequently they decided to purchase land at Gopalaram Kalan Village and entered the MOU dated 16.08.2008 in the presence of LWs.2 & 3 with one of the conditions therein of A1 to A3 agreed of land agreements, plot registration and office management pertaining to the venture to be entrusted to the complainant and on the same day accused and complainant entered buy back guarantee agreements also and the investment and percentage of shares between them in that venture are for A1-10% share with capital investment of Rs.5,00,000/-, A2-K.Ramachandra Reddy 10% with equal capital investment and A.3-S.Someshwar Raju and another 40% with Rs.20,00,000/- capital investments and complainant-Nagaraju 40% with equal capital investment of Rs.20,00,000/- and they purchased different extents of land of 5 acres on 28.08.2008 by sale agreement No.2979/2008, 4 acres on 03.10.2008 by sale deed No.3393/2008, Ac.2-23 guntas by sale deed No.3929/2008, Ac.0-26 guntas on 27.02.2009 by sale deed No.550/2009, Ac.0-18 guntas on 09.09.2010 by sale deed No.559/2010 which all relate to Ac.12-27 guntas registered in the name of the complainant as venture partner and subsequently on 14.02.2009 A1 and A2 retired from the venture because of differences between them and same was accepted to take the shares of the retiring partner by complainant and A3 and later another MOU dated 16.02.2009 entered between A.1 to A.3 with complainant, A.1 and A.2 merged their shares to the share of A3 and later A3's share became 60% and complainant-40% and transactions between the complainant and A3 went peacefully with lot of pending works due by A3, that on 30.09.2010 A3 entered another MOU with complainant for pending works as venture partner including buy back guarantee agreement and sold balance plots of A3 share and not completed pending works so far. Further averred after merging of shares supra without knowledge and consent of complainant, A1 to A3 passed resolution on 10.05.2014 stating complainant is representing in the entity firm as venture partner and partner of the firm, but complainant is working as Marketing Manager and also resolved that complainant is removed from the firm and not having any right to sell the plots and land in above venture though the complainant is venture partner in Brundavanam Venture of Gopalaram, but not partner of the firm and A1 to A3 entered agreement contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement/MOUs dated 16.08.2008, 16.02.2009 & 30.09.2010 without any right to enter agreements or execute sale deeds to third parties for all lands of said venture registered in the name of complainant as a venture partner and the sales executed by A1 to A3 without knowledge of the complainant on 16.06.2014 & 30.06.2014 in favour of E.Ramesh and D.Jayamma without right and without cancellation of earlier 3 MOUs supra and without any right in them and without settlement of complainant's investment in the venture which acts of them attracting the offence under Section 420 IPC of cheating besides other offences and accused 1 to 3 gave adamant replies when questioned with dire consequences and the investigation revealed the same in charging the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506 r/w 34 IPC.
(3.)The contentions in the quash petition vis- -vis oral submissions of the impugnment of registration of the crime and police final report and cognizance order of the learned Magistrate are that even taken on face value of the entire allegations supra no case is made out against the petitioner for the alleged offence for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and petitioner earlier filed Crl.P.No.3229 of 2016 to quash CC.No.1092 of 2014 and for want of material that petition was dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition and there is no proper witness evidence enclosed to the complaint for proving the offence against the petitioner and the police Uppal mechanically registered the crime and made table investigation in filing the charge sheet on the pressure of the defacto complainant and the continuation of proceedings is abuse of process. It is also the submission vis- -vis the contention of the 2nd respondent-complainant earlier filed against the petitioner and another report registered as crime No.125/2014 of Munipalli PS, Medak District for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427, 468 & 506 IPC and the police final report by referring as false and questioning the FIR itself petitioner and another filed quash petition No.1025/2015 that was closed on the ground of very crime referred as false. The 2nd respondent-complainant filed cheque bouncing in CC.No.82/2011 against V.Rajaiah and in the course of his cross examination deposed that he has taken amount from his friend in cash and did not close name of friend and the quash petitioner is not partner or sleeping partner of Suryodaya Ventures & Constructions but for Surender Reddy, Ramachandra Reddy and Someshwar Raju and denied the suggestion of he is sleeping partner in the firm and suppressing the fact of 2nd respondent not at all a partner to the above firm filed false case with intent to extract money from the petitioner and thereby the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.