HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No.8630 OF 2013
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in Cr.No.201 of 2013 of I-Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-A-1 & A-2 and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State. None appears for the second respondent-complainant. Perused the material on record.
3. The second respondent filed a private complaint before the learned I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem, against A-1 to A-10 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Act and the same was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C 2 for investigation and report. Thereafter, the Police, Kothagudem I-Town registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2012 against A-1 to A-10 for the offences stated above.
4. The second respondent, who belongs to Lambada community, alleged in her complaint that her father purchased house property bearing No.6-1-742, 6-4-154, 6-4-470 (old), corresponding to new No.6-4-156 being an extent of 180 sq. yards situated at Netaji Market, Lambadi Bazar, Kothagudem Town & Mandal. The above said property, which is worth Rs.20 lakhs, stands in her name and recorded as the absolute owner and possessor. She further alleged that A-2 had created false documents and used them as genuine in order to cheat her and grab the said property; that A-2 and A-1 obtained conveyance patta vide document bearing No.1790/2011 dated 16.08.2011 and patta bearing No.1869/2011 dated 18.08.2011 in respect of the said property; that A-3 to A-10 with a dishonest and fraudulent intention criminally conspired with A-1 and A-2 to grab her property and got entered their name in the records by deleting her name and fraudulently obtained pattas; that A-7 fraudulently misled the complainant and deliberately concealed the files 3 by tampering the evidence. Thus, A-1 to A-10 with a dishonest intention have resorted to criminal conspiracy to grab the valuable property of the complainant worth Rs.20 lakhs.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the house bearing No.6-1-489 stands in the name of Smt.Kamala Bai as owner in municipal records from 1972-73 to 1991-92 and in the year 1991-92, door No.6-1-489 was changed to 6-4-156 and name of said Kamala Bai continued as owner till 17.08.2004 and later from 18.08.2004, the name of Smt.Vimala Bail was entered and she continued as owner in respect of H.No.6-4-156 as legal heir. He further submits that H.No.6-1-490 stands in the name of Sri Tulasi Ram Jaju as owner in the municipal records from 1972-73 to 1991-92 and in the year 1991-92, Door No.6-1-490 was changed to 6-4-154, 6-4-155 and he continued till 21.12.2001 as owner. Learned counsel further submits that the name of first petitioner was mutated in the records by deleting the name of Sri Tulasi Ram Jaju in respect of above said house numbers, as legal heir.
4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no house with H.No.6-4-470 at all in the municipal records and H.No.6-4-156 does not tally with old H.Nos.6-1-742, 6-4-154 or 6-4-470 and false door numbers were given by the complainant without verifying the municipal records. He further submits that the allegations in the complaint do not prima facie constitute any of the offences alleged and that a false complaint is filed by the second respondent and without there being any allegations disclosing commission of the offences, the present case was registered. He prays for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, submits the allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences and that the investigating agency may be permitted to complete the investigation. She prays to dismiss the petition.
8. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint discloses that the complainant owns a house property worth Rs.20 lakhs which 5 was purchased by her father. A-1 and A-2 have been taking care of the property of the complainant by paying the property tax and they developed greedy intention to grab her property knowing that the complainant is illiterate. On coming to know of their intention, she filed a complaint before A-9 and A-10 not to issue regularization conveyance patta in respect of her property. The complainant, after knowing the fraud, criminal conspiracy of A-1 to A-10, on 30.10.2012, approached A-7-Municipal Commissioner, who, in turn informed her that A-1 and A-2 do not have any title over the house property and A-3 had collected the property tax of her house in the name of A-1 and A-2. A-5, who is the ward councilor, colluded with all the accused and resorted to dishonest and fraudulent cheating in respect of the property belonging to the complainant. Thus, the complainant alleged that A-1 to A-10 had resorted to criminal conspiracy to grab her valuable house property worth Rs.10 lakhs with dishonest and fraudulent intention and without any basis, the names of A-1 and A-2 were entered in the municipal records.
6
9. The question which is to be considered is whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences alleged.
10. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid the following guidelines while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and gave the following categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, as under:
(a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the 1 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 7 commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where
the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulteriormotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".
11. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held at paragraph 103 as under:
8
"We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice".
12. In the case on hand, the allegations in the complaint do not clearly constitute any of the offences alleged justifying registration of case and investigation thereon because of the allegations of the second respondent that her name was deleted from municipal records at the instance of A-1 and A-2 and regularization conveyance patta was granted in their favour and in the said process A-3 to A-10 conspired and colluded with A-1 and A-2 and with dishonest intention caused loss to the complainant by grabbing away her property, which is worth Rs.20 lakhs. Even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offences or make out a case against the accused for the reason the second respondent has to invoke the civil court to establish her title to the property by seeking recovery of the same. When the record 9 filed by the petitioners categorically show the name of A-2 in respect of the house property which is much prior to the alleged proceedings, the allegation that they have colluded with the municipal authorities and got the house property entered in their name prima facie do not constitute any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. Merely because the second respondent belongs to scheduled tribe community and without there being any allegations, invoking the offence under the SC/ST Act is nothing but abuse of process of law.
13. For the foregoing reasons and after considering the allegations in the complaint in detail, it appears that the second respondent instead of approaching the civil court by giving coloured version of the events and making the allegations to give the cloak of criminal case with an ulterior motive filed the present complaint and such proceedings ought not to be permitted to harassment and persecution of the parties. It also appears that the learned Magistrate has not given a serious look into the allegations before referring the complaint for investigation. Had he given attention to the allegations in the complaint, things would have been different and he should not have made the parties to approach 10 this court for seeking such action. Further, the present case squarely falls within the parameters of the decision of the Apex Court in BHAJAN LAL's case (supra).
14. Under these circumstances, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2.
15. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in Cr.No.201 of 2013 of I-Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District, are hereby quashed.
16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 16.08.2022 Lrkm