Telangana High Court
Yeddhanti Madhusudhan Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3882 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.101 of 2024 of Dichpally Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Dichpally Police Station against the petitioner stating that the mother of respondent No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.2.32 guntas in Sy.No.1433, situated at Bardipur Shivar Village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. The said land was gifted to her daughters i.e., respondent No.2 and her siblings vide document No.8481 of 2020, dated 10.08.2020. The said property was divided into three shares and their names were also mutated in revenue records. Later, partition deed was executed on 04.04.2022. That being so, respondent No.2 came to know through legal notice that the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 petitioner was claiming rights over the scheduled land by way of agreement of sale, dated 11.09.2016 executed by the mother of respondent No.2. It is further stated by the petitioner that the said land was sold to him for an amount of Rs.98.00 lakhs and out of which Rs.30.00 lakhs and Rs.20.00 lakhs were paid vide acknowledgment dated 11.09.2016 and 04.11.2016 respectively. Later, a mutual understanding dated 04.11.2018 was executed whereby Rs.15.00 lakhs was received and extension of time was provided for payment of remaining Rs.33.00 lakhs. It is further stated that after execution of partition deed, the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.14 of 2023 for specific performance against respondent No.2 and her siblings. Respondent No.2 obtained documents relied upon by the petitioner and sent the same to M/s. Truth labs to verify the signatures of the mother of respondent No.2, along with a specimen signature. The said lab reports revealed that the documents were forged and fraudulently created. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered a case in Crime No. 101 of 2024. Hence, the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings.
3. Heard Sri T. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri G. Tarun Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegations leveled against him are vague. He further submitted that the case is completely civil in nature as the petitioner already filed a civil suit against respondent No.2 and her siblings and the same is pending before the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the charge sheet, the petitioner forged and fabricated the signatures of mother of respondent No.2, however, respondent No.2 failed to acknowledge the fact that the signatures of her father and other witnesses are also present in the documents and they were not sent to the Truth labs for testing. In fact, the report was obtained based on the photocopy of the document, as the original document has been filed before the Court and the same is not admissible. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunti and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein in paragraph No.12, it is held as follows:
1
(2023) 6 SCC 109 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 "12. Having regard to the above well-established principles and also noting that the present dispute is entirely with respect to property and more particularly buying and selling thereof, it cannot be doubted that a criminal hue has been unjustifiably lent to a civil natured issued."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand 2, wherein in paragraph No.12 it is held as follows:
"12. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court."
7. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and Another vs. State of Karnataka 3, wherein in paragraph No.7 it is held as follows:
"7. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of 2 (2013) 11 SCC 673 3 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 harassment. In Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine Sc 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure."
8. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Hari Lal vs Bhagwati vs. CBI, New Delhi, wherein in paragraph No.40 it is held as follows:
"40. It is settled law, by a catena of decisions, that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. From his making failure to keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention right at the beginning that is at the time when the promise was made cannot be presumed..."
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition stating that mother of respondent No.2 gifted the subject land to her daughters i.e., respondent No.2 and her siblings. It is further stated that the mother of respondent No.2 never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. The report, in relation to the signatures, issued by M/s Truth Labs clearly 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 revealed that the petitioner committed acts of forgery and cheating, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on the judgment of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 4, wherein in paragraph No.14, it is held as follows:
"14. The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
11. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priti Saraf vs. State (NCT of Delhi), wherein in paragraph Nos.30 and 31, it is held as follows:
"30. Be it noted that in the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of proceedings would be a total abuse of process of the Court. The Criminal 4 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it must use proper circumspection with great care and caution to interfere in the complaint/FIR/Charge-sheet in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
31. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the Court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of process of the Court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing such proceedings."
12. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, it appears that the case is civil in nature. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that mother of respondent No.2 executed agreement of sale in the year, 2016 and the partition done by respondent No.2 was in 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 the year, 2022. The police cannot register the case basing on the forensic analysis issued by M/s. Truth labs as the report was basing on the Photostat copy but not on the original document. When the suit is for specific performance, the original documents are before the Civil Court, and they have to file an application before the Civil Court for sending the same to the Government lab along with the contemporary signatures.
13. In view of the law laid down in Bheri Nageswara Rao vs. Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao 5, this Court has categorically held that the comparison of disputed siguatures on the Photostat copy with the original signature of the then Tahsildar in D.K Register is erroneous. If really, there is any doubt about the signature, the second respondent ought to have called upon the petitioner to produce the original patta for limited purpose of comparision of disputed signature of the Tahsildar on the patta with the signature available in the D.K Register. Instead of resorting to such procedure, the second respondent himself has gone to the extent of comparing the signature of the Tahsildar appearing on the Photostat copy with the signature in D.K. Register without any sanction of law.
5 2006 (4) ALD 295 9 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024
14. In the present case, the document sent to the M/s. Truth lab is Photostat copy. At this stage, the Police cannot conclude on the report of the said Lab, which is given basing on the Photostat copy. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is a civil suit pending before the trial Court, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated, whereas, the contention of respondent No.2 is that the mother of respondent No.2 never executed agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and when she came to know that the said land was sold in favour of petitioner, she sent the signatures to M/s. Truth lab and the report reveals that the signatures are forged and fabricated, as such, she filed a criminal case against the petitioner. However, based on the forensic analysis, the Investigating agency cannot conclude that documents are forged. Further, the investigation is at initial stage and without going into the merits of the case, prima facie, the alleged forgery is basing on the FSL report by comparing Photostat copy is not in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines formulated by the 10 SKS,J Crl.P.No.3882 of 2024 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 6 scrupulously. However, the petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation. The petitioner/accused shall file all the documents which he ought to file to prove that it do not come under the criminal offences and the Investigating Officer shall consider the same before filing appropriate report before the Magistrate.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 23.04.2024 SAI 6 (2014) 8 SCC 273