Telangana High Court
Mohd Samiuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9705 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.7957 of 2023, on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Chatrinaka Police Station, Hyderabad against the petitioners stating that she and other six siblings are the legal heirs of late Mohd Yousufuddin and as such, they are the joint owners and peaceful possessors of house bearing No.18-1-544 in Sy.No.92 and 93 situated at Kandikalgate, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. During the lifetime of their father, he had partitioned the said property among the petitioners and other legal heirs and when she was in United Kingdom, one of her brother i.e., petitioner No.1 has created GPA by forging her signature and entered into an agreement of sale with third parties. When the third parties asked her to come forward and register the property, then she informed that she never executed any GPA and 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9705 of 2023 denied the agreement of sale. Later, when she enquired about the same with her brother and her family members, they denied the same and questioned the above said persons and threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.406 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with 34 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri M.A. Qavi Abbasi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri Mir Mukarram Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature and without proper investigation, police filed charge-sheet. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that since there are serious allegations against the petitioners, quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners forged the signatures of respondent No.2 and they are trying to sell the 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9705 of 2023 subject property to third parties, which requires trial. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2. Further, there are serious allegations against the petitioners that they forged the signature of respondent No.2 and created GPA and to that effect she filed the criminal case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations levelled against the petitioners do not constitute the offence.
7. It is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 1, wherein in paragraph No.20 it is held as follows:
"20. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C; to prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. The extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the Court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, 1 (2013) 10 SCC 591 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.9705 of 2023 cannot be examined. The law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the charge-sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during the pendency of such application before the Court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge. However, the inherent power of the Court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be save the accused from undergoing the agony of a criminal trial."
8. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with unless their presence is specifically required during the course of trial and subject to the condition that the petitioners are being represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________ K. SUJANA, J Date:16.04.2024 SAI