THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4892 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners - A2 and A3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No.142 of 2013 of Uppal Police Station, Cyberabad at Ranga Reddy District.
2. The 2nd respondent - complainant filed a private complaint before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar stating that A1 was his relative and approached him during January, 2011 and requested the complainant to stood as guarantor for a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- which he intended to obtain as loan from A2 company and requested him to deposit his title deeds in respect of his house property towards collateral security. Believing him, the complainant stood as a guarantor and A1 along with A4 (the Branch Executive) of A2 company obtained his signatures on some blank printed papers without explaining its contents. The complainant under good faith, signed on the said papers and thereafter, at their request went to Sub Registrar Office, Uppal for getting the deed of deposit of title deeds registered in the said office. The complainant submitted that he was illiterate and did not know reading and writing, except putting his signature in English. He further stated that in the month of May/June, 2011, A5 came to his house and informed that the A1 was not paying EMIs regularly and asked him to come to the Branch office. When the complainant visited the branch office, he came to know that A1 Dr.GRR,J 2 CrlP.No.4892 of 2013 borrowed a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/-, but not Rs.30,00,000/- as believed by him. When the complainant asked for the documents executed by him, A5 furnished a photostat copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of title deed dated 29.03.2011, but failed to furnish other documents. The complainant verified the said deed of deposit of title deeds through his son and to his surprise found that the signature appearing on the second page of the said deed, where the amount was shown, did not belong to him and somebody forged his signature. The complainant and his son on noticing the same, approached A5, Branch Manager of A2, and accosted A1. A1 admitted that it was A4 who did the mistake and forged the signature of the complainant and promised that he would pay the entire amount due to A2 company and would get release the complainant's title deeds, but he failed to get them released and went absconding. The complainant issued a notice calling upon A1 to A5 to return the documents executed by him by executing necessary documents for cancellation of deposit of title deed. The accused sent a reply with false allegations. As such, he approached the police but as the police dodged the matter, filed the private complaint which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Basing on the private complaint referred to them, the police, Uppal registered a case against A1 to A6 under Sections 120- B, 406, 409, 420 and 468 read with 34 IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant.
Dr.GRR,J 3 CrlP.No.4892 of 2013
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A2 was an authorized signatory of the company i.e. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., except that he had no personal acquaintance with the complainant or A1. At the relevant time of loan transaction, the 2nd petitioner-A3 was working as Divisional Manager, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and as he was the Divisional Manager of the company at the time of lodging the compliant, he was implicated in the present case. Evidently, the complainant signed as a guarantor in the requisite documents on behalf of A1. A cheque was issued by the company for Rs.1,25,00,000/- in favour of A1. The same was encashed and a receipt was given by A1 and guarantors, including the complainant. Consequent to the default committed by A1, Shriram City Union Finance Limited company initiated proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act against A1 and the same were pending. The complainant filed CC No.83 of 2013 on the file of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District on the same set of facts to direct the opposite parties No.1 and 2 therein to return the title deeds document No.4275/1996, approved plan with proceedings issued by the Commissioner, Uppal Kalan Municipality and the original property tax receipt issued by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad by executing a deed of redemption/cancellation and to hold that the opposite parties therein were jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and to award costs of Rs.25,000/-. The said case was dismissed. The ingredients to Dr.GRR,J 4 CrlP.No.4892 of 2013 constitute the alleged offences in the complaint were not made out and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. The 2nd respondent-complainant filed counter affidavit contending that he filed a complaint in view of his discovery that a Memorandum evidencing deposit of title deeds dated 29.03.2011 had been tampered with, the pages were changed and his signatures were forged on the changed papers and the company claimed huge amount from him without any consent from him to stand as surety or guarantor or deposit of title deeds for such amount. The execution of loan agreement, demand promissory note etc., had no bearing on him. At the time of filing the consumer complaint he had no access to the loan application and other documents, except the memorandum evidencing deposit of title deeds claimed by the company. Subsequently, he learnt that the loan application itself had been fudged and fabricated and the guarantor who was to give guarantee was some other person whose photo was attached to the said loan application with the company. There was a diabolical conspiracy right from the beginning in which the officials of the company including the petitioner had a hand. The ingredients of Section 420 IPC were apparent on the face of record. In addition to the relief under Consumers Act, he was entitled to file a private complaint by invoking the provisions of IPC as the petitioners conspired with others and committed serious offences. The consumer case was wrongly disposed against him and prayed to dismiss the petition.
Dr.GRR,J 5 CrlP.No.4892 of 2013
6. Perused the record. As per the private complaint filed by the complainant, the signature appearing on the second page of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, where the amount was shown, did not belong to him and somebody forged his signature and he accosted A1 and the latter informed that it was A4, who did the mischief and forged the signature of the complainant. The complainant was alleging that there was a diabolical conspiracy from the beginning including the officials of the company. As such, the complaint would prima facie disclose the ingredients of the offences registered against the petitioners.
7. On a perusal of the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, it would disclose that CC No.83 of 2013 was dismissed observing that:
"Apart from the above aspect, we are also of the view that the present dispute cannot be decided in summary manner. The complainant surprisingly says that he is an illiterate even though he is able to put his signature in English on several documents. Hence, it is necessary to cross examine him to know his education details. Likewise, it is not possible to prove the alleged forgery without sending the disputed document to any hand writing expert who is also to be examined. Admittedly, the investigation of the case is also pending with the police. Anyhow, we came to the conclusion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when the complainant is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act. We answered this point against the complainant."
8. The dismissal of the said case by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no bearing on the criminal case as the points for consideration in the said case were different from the ingredients of the offences that have to be looked into in the criminal case.
Dr.GRR,J 6 CrlP.No.4892 of 2013
9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-complainant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.1, wherein it was held that:
"5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere."
10. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.2, wherein it was held that:
"41. It is needless to point out that ever since the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (MANU/PR/0007/1994:air 1945 PC 18), the law is well settled that Courts would not thwart any investigation. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (MANU/SC/0115/1992: (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. In S.M. Datta vs. State of Gujarat (MANU/SC/0486/2001 : (2001) 7 SCC 659), this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta (supra), this Court held that if a perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."
1 AIR 2019 SC 847 2 AIR 2021 SC 931 Dr.GRR,J 7 CrlP.No.4892 of 2013
11. Considering the above judgments and as the complaint discloses prima facie offences that are lodged against the petitioners and the correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial, it is considered not fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
12. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 19, 2021 KTL