TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 647
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to bring to the notice of the police regarding unlawful actions of the committee members and Jubilee Hills Cooperative House Building Society in respect of sale deed No.2675 of 2020 and Gift deed No.26BB of 2020. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that on 25.03.1988, Plot No.853- F was allotted to Ms.Ch.Sirisha and the plot was lying vacant since then. If the plot is not registered within three years of allotment, as per the bye-laws of the Society, the allotment would lapse automatically. The said Ch.Sirisha migrated to USA and the plot cannot be registered in her name. The Society with the assistance of A1 to A6 entered into the property in the year 2017 and started construction activity and also causing nuisance to the neighbor in plot No.853-C. During the Covid pandemic period in 2019, A1 to A6 with the support of A9- Sub-Registrar registered the plot vide document No.2675 of 2020 in the name of Ch.Sirisha @ Rs.126/- per sq.yard for a total consideration of Rs. 1,91,000/- even though the market value is around Rs.45.00 Crores. In the process, the Registration Department has been cheated. In the event of the property being sold in the open market, it would have garnered money ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orization, the members have requested not to continue the criminal prosecution of the case. It was also resolved by the Society as follows " Mr. M.Satya Savarkar, President has raised that subject that the earlier Secretary Sri B.Ravindranath filed a criminal case in C.C.No.6229 of 2022 before XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against Sri T.Narendra Chowdary, Hanumantha Rao, A.Suresh Reddy, Ch.Krishna Murthy, D.Srinivas Rcddy, M.T.Javceduddin, Ch.Sirisha, P.Srihari and Sri D.Srinivas (Sub-registrar), Banjara Hills), alleging offences under Sections 406, 408, 418, 420, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. He also brought to the notice of the Committee that the society had not authorized Sri B.Ravindranath to file such criminal case representing the Society in view of the earlier Secretary B.Ravindranath acting without authorization, the members requested to take a decision whether or not to continue prosecution of such criminal case. He was also informed that Bye-laws of the Society do not permit such action as it is beyond the scope of the Byelaws. Resolution: The Committee unanimously resolved that the prosecution in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sri K.Venumadav, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent- Society would submit that the earlier Secretary B. Ravinderanath has no locus standi to argue in the present case and he cannot be impleaded. However, the Senior Counsel representing B. Ravindranath was heard. 12. Before adjudicating upon the rival contentions, it is necessary to give the details on the basis of which the police referred the compliant as civil in nature; "i) Ch. Sirisha was allotted the property by the society on 30.11.1991. She paid fee and development charges. The Society did not register the property in view of the restrictions imposed by the Registrar for Coop Societies, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.35170 /2005-H7, dated 19. 12.2005 wherein he directed the Society not to transfer or issue NOCs to its members without approval of the Government. The same was intimated to Ch.Sirisha vide Lr.No.JCS /263/2007, dt. 4.7.2007; ii) Ch.Sirisha approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed W.P.No. 160872007 for relief The Hon'ble High Court allowed petition sating that the said proceedings of the Registrar of Coop Societies was challenged by batch of WPs and proceedings of the Registrar were found a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deepak Gaba's case (supra) has observed that when the pre-summoning evidence is lead by the complainant, liability of the penal provisions alleged should be established. In several cases, it is noticed that the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court is invoked by filing vexatious criminal complaints, which were purely civil claims and such attempts to file vexatious criminal complaints should not be entertained and dismissed at the threshold. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that mere assertion "that having perused the record and statements of witnesses prima facie accusation is well founded" as recorded by the learned Magistrate will not meet the requirements of summoning the accused by application of judicious mind. Time and again, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has found that summoning a person as accused to face criminal trial is a serious step taken by the criminal Court and such summoning can only be done when the Magistrate finds on the basis of facts that the ingredients of the offence alleged are prima facie made out. For the said reason, cognizance order bereft of proper reasoning is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 1....