THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7136 of 2015
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.129 of 2015 on the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur, R.R. District for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 05.02.2004 at 8.35 PM, the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant lodged a report before the SR Nagar Police, which was subsequently, transferred on the point of jurisdiction to the Sanathnagar Police Station, stating that Mohd. Saheb Hussain married her in the year 1989 and sold out all her properties, gold, factory, machinery, workshop machinery etc., and harassed her both physically and mentally and absconded, leaving her in debts in March, 2000. She lodged a complaint against her husband in 2001 under Section 498-A and 420 IPC. Later a compromise was effected before the elders. As per the compromise, her husband paid Rs.1,00,000/- and returned the original documents of her 200 sq.yds., of land in Madinaguda, Miyapur, R.R. District, which she had given to him earlier. When she tried to sell that land, she came to know that her husband got a GPA registered as if the complainant executed GPA in favour of one Md. Nizamuddin and two others by impersonating the complainant vide document No.5675 of 2002. Again the said GPA holder registered the said land in favour of the complainant on a fictitious name vide document No.8705 of 2003 Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.7136 of 2015 at the Sub-Registrar office, Ranga Reddy District on 10.07.2003. Thus, they committed the offence of impersonation and forgery. Basing on the same, the SR Nagar police registered as Crime No.96 of 2004 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and on the point of jurisdiction, transferred to Sanathnagar P.S., which was re-registered as Crime No.88 of 2004 and after completing the investigation, filed charge sheet only against her husband. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the case against the accused in CC No.4397 of 2005. The de facto complainant preferred an appeal vide Crl.A. No.96 of 2008 on the file of V Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District. The V Additional District Judge while passing judgment on 10.10.2011 directed the IX Metropolitan Magistrate to invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against four persons apart from the accused in CC No.4397 of 2005 and to conduct fresh trial. Thus, the petitioner - accused was implicated in CC No.129 of 2015 which was transferred to the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unaware of the disputes between the de facto complainant and her husband, the petitioner trusted the words of the husband of the de facto complainant and got entered into the agreement of sale and GPA dated 09.07.2002. Once the petitioner got to understand the malafide Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.7136 of 2015 intention of the husband of the de facto complainant, preferred to return back the property covered under the GPA and under the advise of the husband of the de facto complainant executed a sale deed vide document No.8705 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003 duly registered in the office of the Joint Sub Registrar and also surrendered the relevant documents with possession. The petitioner was neither benefited with the property nor was in possession of the same. The petitioner, in fact, had suffered huge financial loss. He was having no knowledge about the impersonation of the de facto complainant and never had any intention to cheat her. There were no specific acts against the petitioner. The Station House Officer, Sanathnagar, after thorough investigation made the husband of the de facto complainant as a sole accused. The complainant had not made out a case against the petitioner. By virtue of the present complainant, the petitioner was put to severe mental agony and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his prayer seeking dispensation of the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court on every date of adjournment.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the presence of the petitioner may not be necessary on every date of adjournment.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal appearance of the petitioner in CC No.129 of 2015 on the file of the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is dispensed with, Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.7136 of 2015 except on the dates when his presence is specifically required by the Court below.
8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 12, 2021 KTL