High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Real Estate Companies Over “Deposits” in Land Sales

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Kapil Infra Avenues Pvt Ltd & Ors. vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)

Criminal Petition Nos. 2762 and 2761 of 2019

Date: 04th April 2025

Key Takeaways

• Advances for Property Sales ≠ Deposits: The court clarified that money received as advance for sale of immovable property, if adjusted as per the agreement, is not a “deposit” under Rule 2(1)©(xii)(b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.
• Abuse of Process: The court found the criminal proceedings were initiated based on complaints from a person with a history of vexatious litigation, and not from actual buyers or depositors.
• Quashing Power: The High Court used its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that such power should be used to prevent injustice and abuse of court process.
• Legal Precedents Applied: The court relied on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal” and “Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar” to determine when criminal proceedings should be quashed.

Issue

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for allegedly accepting “deposits” in violation of the Companies Act, 2013, should be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code?

Facts

• Who: Kapil Infra Avenues Pvt Ltd and Ramya Constructions Ltd (petitioners/accused); The State of Andhra Pradesh and Registrar of Companies (respondents/complainants).
• What: The companies were accused of collecting money from the public as “deposits” under the guise of advances for land sales, allegedly violating Section 73 and punishable under Section 76A of the Companies Act, 2013.
• How: The Registrar of Companies acted on complaints from one Guruzala Venkateswara Rao, who had a history of filing multiple cases against the companies. An inspection found the companies collected advances, sometimes paid interest, and refunded money if the sale didn’t go through.
• Proceedings: Criminal cases (C.C. No. 9 and 10 of 2019) were filed. The companies sought to quash these cases, arguing the advances were legitimate and not deposits as per the law.

Arguments

Petitioners (Companies)

• The money collected was advance sale consideration for property, not deposits.
• Rule 2(1)©(xii)(b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014, specifically excludes such advances from the definition of “deposit” if adjusted as per the agreement.
• Refunds with interest were only given to those who didn’t complete the purchase, as per the agreement.
• The complainant (Guruzala Venkateswara Rao) was not a buyer or directly involved, and had a history of vexatious litigation.

Respondents (Registrar of Companies, State)

• The companies collected advances, paid interest, and refunded money without actual sale, which should be treated as deposits.
• The exemption in Rule 2(1)©(xii)(b) does not apply if the advance is not adjusted against the property as per the agreement.
• The companies’ balance sheets showed ongoing acceptance and refund of such amounts, indicating they were acting as deposit-takers.

Key Legal Precedents

• Section 482 of Cr.P.C.: Empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
• Rule 2(1)©(xii)(b) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014: Excludes advances for property sales from “deposits” if adjusted as per the agreement.
• Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar (AIR 1990 SC 494): High Court can quash proceedings if the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335): Laid down guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings, including when proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or are maliciously instituted.

Judgement

• Decision: The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings (C.C. No. 9 and 10 of 2019) against both companies.
• Reasoning: The court found that the advances collected were for genuine property transactions and were exempt from being treated as deposits under the relevant rules. The complaints were found to be motivated by personal vendetta, not by actual aggrieved parties. Continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the court’s process.
• Order: Criminal Petition Nos. 2762 and 2761 of 2019 were allowed, and all related proceedings were quashed.

FAQs

Q1: Why did the court quash the criminal proceedings?

A: The court found that the money collected was advance payment for property sales, not deposits, and the complaints were motivated by personal vendetta, not genuine grievances.

Q2: What is the significance of Rule 2(1)©(xii)(b) in this case?

A: This rule excludes advances for property sales from the definition of “deposit” if they are adjusted as per the agreement, which was the case here.

Q3: Who was the main complainant, and why did the court question his motives?

A: Guruzala Venkateswara Rao, who had a history of filing multiple cases against the companies, was not a buyer or directly involved. The court saw his actions as an abuse of process.

Q4: What legal principles did the court rely on to quash the proceedings?

A: The court relied on the Supreme Court’s guidelines in “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal” and “Mrs. Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar” regarding when criminal proceedings can be quashed.

Q5: Does this mean all advances for property sales are exempt from being treated as deposits?

A: Not always. Only if the advances are adjusted as per the agreement and not refunded due to lack of permission or approval. Each case depends on its facts and compliance with the law.