Hyderabad: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi of the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of cheating in a property transaction, holding that no prima facie case under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was made out against her.
The complainant initially entered into an oral agreement with the accused for sale of a flat located at Filmnagar, Jubilee Hills, in 2007 and paid Rs 35 lakh as advance against a sale consideration of Rs 50 lakh. Possession was handed over, but the sale deed was never executed.
The complainant claimed to have subsequently paid another Rs 17 lakh following a demand for Rs 20 lakh by the accused. However, the accused allegedly sold the property to the petitioner through a registered sale deed dated December 12, 2019.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the transaction was civil in nature and that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser with no prior knowledge of any dispute. It was pointed out that a civil suit was pending before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking specific performance of the 2007 oral agreement, and that dragging the petitioner into criminal proceedings amounted to misuse of the criminal justice system.
The judge took note of settled legal principles, including the Supreme Court’s ruling, reiterating that criminal prosecution cannot be used as a tool for harassment in what is essentially a civil dispute. The judge observed that there was no material on record to show that the petitioner had any fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.
She had acquired the property lawfully through a registered deed and was unaware of the pending litigation at the time of purchase. Citing the lack of direct nexus or inducement between the complainant and the petitioner, the judge held that the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating under the IPC were not satisfied.
Accused in suicide case get relief
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice J. Anil Kumar held that the only evidence against the appellants in a case of a woman’s suicide was a dying declaration recorded by a magistrate three days after the suicide attempt. In the absence of corroborating evidence, it could not sustain a conviction. The panel observed that the prosecution failed to explain why no complaint was lodged by the parents or relatives of the deceased when the suicide attempt occurred on June 24, 2012.
Instead, the father of the deceased filed a complaint only after the death of the victim, specifically stating that she had died by suicide due to pending dues with a bank. The bench was critical of the manner in which the magistrate recorded the dying declaration. It noted that the magistrate used a pre-printed proforma to ask questions, which was contrary to the procedure established by law. “In such cases, it is the duty of the magistrate to frame relevant questions based on facts and surrounding circumstances to ascertain the mental state of the declarant,” the bench said.
The mechanical use of a questionnaire, without adapting it to the specific situation, indicated non-application of mind. The panel pointed out that none of the witnesses testified to any quarrel between the deceased and the family members or the appellants. Even in the dying declaration, no clear reason was given as to why the appellants allegedly poured kerosene on the deceased and set her on fire.
As per the case details, the deceased had borrowed Rs 12,000 from a bank. After the death of her father-in-law Bheemaiah, the responsibility of repayment fell on her and her husband Narsimulu. Unable to repay the loan, she allegedly died by suicide on June 24, 2012, at around 9.30 pm, in the absence of her husband.
Neighbours who heard her cries rushed her to a hospital in Vikarabad, from where she was later shifted to Osmania General Hospital. She succumbed to her injuries while undergoing treatment. The consistent version of the deceased’s parents and other witnesses was that the couple was under financial distress due to the bank loan and related notices, which drove her to suicide.
The panel concluded that once the dying declaration was excluded from consideration, there remained no other evidence on record to support the conviction. Accordingly, the appellants were acquitted.
