1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10989 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/A4 to A7 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1974 of 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Malkajgiri. The offences alleged against the petitioners/A4 to A7 are under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 463, 464, 468, 469, 470, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. Perused the record.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that he is the GPA holder of one Lanka Sirisha, his elder sister and she is the absolute owner of H.No.38-19, Plot No.4, Rohini Colony, Sainikpuri. The said property devolved on her by way of a will deed executed by her grand-mother late Vemuri Padmaja Rani during her life time. Accused No.1 is the maternal uncle of the 2nd respondent/complainant and Accused No.2 is the wife of A1 2 and Accused No.3 is son of A1 and A2. The complainant's grandmother died on 03.10.2014 and before her death, she executed a will deed giving the property to the sister of complainant. It is however alleged that Accused No.1 managed Accused No.8 and executed a registered gift deed in favour of Accused No.3, his son on 05.05.2017, allegedly by fabricating documents. The case against these petitioners is that they were witnesses to the registered gift deed and the GPA.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners have witnessed the execution of the registered document and even according to the charge sheet and statements, they have nothing to do with the differences in between A1 to A3 and the complainant. It is not the case of the Police that these petitioners have in any manner fabricated any documents or done any other acts attracting any penal consequences, except mentioning that these petitioners were witnesses to the registered document.
5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/2nd respondent would submit that once they have acted as witnesses, it can be inferred that they are part of 3 criminal conspiracy in execution of false documents. For the said reason, the proceedings against these petitioners cannot be quashed and they have to undergo trial.
6. Having perused the record, the allegation against these petitioners is that they acted as witnesses to the registered documents. None of the witnesses speak about these petitioners except for the documents themselves which were executed in the concerned Sub-Registrar's office. The person witnessing a document does not affirm to the contents of the document or has anything to do with the rights of the parties. He is merely a witness to the document being registered in the Sub-Registrar's office. Witnessing a document which is a gift deed executed by the father in favour of his son would not in any manner amount to criminal conspiracy to commit any criminal acts of forgery and cheating.
7. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent and A1 to A3 belong to one family. However, disputes are with respect to the ancestral property.
8. In the said circumstances, without there being any allegations against these petitioners who have witnessed the 4 document, the proceedings against them is abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal1 held as follows;
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.1
1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335 5 (4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. In view of the aforesaid Judgment, the High Court under inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can show indulgence and quash such proceedings.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/A4 to A7 in C.C.No.1974 of 6 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.02.2023 tk 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.10989 OF 2022 Dt. 02.02.2023 tk