Malireddy Krishna Mohan vs Mavuri Bala Bhanu Murthy and Another

B. Seshasayana Reddy

This Criminal Petition has been taken out u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.98 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, to quash the proceeding therein.

The 1st respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.98 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. He filed a complaint, alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner is a builder and he constructed the flats contrary to the building permission and induced him to purchase a flat for Rs. 3,20,000/- under an agreement, dated 28.11.2003. On verification with the competent authorities, he came to know that the petitioner constructed the flats in utter violation of the building permission. He presented a report before the Police, which formed the basis for registering a case in Crime No.261 of 2009 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, for the offence u/s 420 IPC. The police, after due investigation, filed a final report stating the dispute is purely civil in nature. Thereafter, the complainant filed a private complaint before IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the complaint, which reads as hereunder:

It is submitted that as part in process of cheating, the accused sold 40 feet undivided vacant site to the complainant though the accused is not entitled to sell the vacant site in parts. For illegal gain, accused also cheated complainant besides others, misrepresenting and making complainant (beside other owners) to believe that the municipal corporation approved plan for construction of group houses vide its B.A.No.11531 by showing draft plan, knowing fully well that the plan was sanctioned/approved for the construction of three floors i.e., GF + 2 floors only and the B.A. No. is not correct. In the course of the accused''s acts of cheating, the accused constructed six flats instead of approved three floors and sold the same to complainant, others and gained illegally. Accused also cheated the Municipal Corporation Authorities besides complainant by violating the condition imposed by the corporation while issuing sanction letter dated 27.11.2003 and converted the construction into group houses for which sanction/approval was not accorded by the corporation.

It is submitted that at the time of construction of group houses, as complainant and other two persons have intended to obtain loan from any financial institution, the accused has taken the complainant and another person to G.I.C., Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. The accused has managed concern authorities by showing relevant documents to them. Subsequently, loan was sanctioned. Likewise, the accused has also brought 3rd person to a bank and got sanctioned loan by a bank. Thus, tactfully, the accused has shown three loans on three flats i.e., one flat in each floor and another three flats i.e., one flat in each floor sold by receiving cash from the respective owners. The plan which was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation is only for one flat each in three floors (i.e., GF + 2 floors only), but accused constructed two flats each in three floors i.e., six flats in three floors instead of one flat each in three floors, by violating the sanctioned/approved plan.

Recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Magistrate took the complaint on file as C.C.No.98 of 2011. Hence, this Criminal Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused with the prayer stated supra.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the transaction between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was in the year 2003 and that the police after due investigation filed a final report stating that the disputes between the parties are civil in nature, in which case, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.98 of 2011 arising out of a private complaint, amounts to abuse of process of the Court.

I have gone through the averments in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent. Relevant portion of the complaint has been extracted supra. The specific accusation against the petitioner is that he having obtained permission for one flat for each floor, constructed two flats in each floor and executed sale deeds in respect of the flats. Apparently, the construction made by the petitioner is contrary to the building permission obtained from the concerned authorities. Such is the material available on record, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.98 of 2011 on the file of IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, cannot be quashed.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.