Telangana High Court
Mohd Akber vs The State Of Telangana on 12 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions are 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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Crime No.99 of 2015 of Mir Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who is one and the same in both the cases, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.12-2-64, admeasuring 152.9 square yards, situated at Muradnagar, Hyderabad. He 2 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 purchased the said property by virtue of registered sale deed for a valuable sale consideration from its owners. On 18.12.2012, when accused Nos.1 to 3 approached respondent No.2 and offered to purchase the said property at a low price, the same was refused by him, as such, accused Nos.1 to 3 interfered with the possession in and over the property. Due to which, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.2941 of 2012 before the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad with all original documents and the Court below granted interim injunction in his favour. Later, the accused violated the orders of the Court below and dispossessed respondent No.2 and beat them, as a result, respondent No.2 and his brother sustained injuries. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 with the help of anti social elements trespassed into the subject premises, for which, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Asifnagar Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.56 of 2013 against accused Nos.1, 2, 6, 7 and 13 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.582 of 2013.
4. Furthermore, accused Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court below and filed counter and written statement in the 3 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 above suit along with forged and fabricated documents with an intention to grab the subject property. It is further stated that the accused mislead the Court below by filing wrong translations of the documents fabricated and forged in Urdu to English and also created the documents by giving the house address of respondent No.2 and obtained Aadhar cards, Ration card, Gas Connection etc. On receipt of the said information, respondent No.2 approached the concerned authorities and cancelled all the above said documents. Therefore, the accused have committed heinous offences and requested the Court below to take necessary action.
5. Basing on the said Complaint, the case was referred to the concerned Police and they registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2015 of Mir Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petitions to quash the proceedings against them.
6. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent 4 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 No.1-State and Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the case was referred to Mir Chowk Police Station and later investigation was done by Mooghalpura Police. He further submitted that when the matter is referred to a particular Police Station for investigation, without permission of the Court, the file cannot be transferred to any other Court. Therefore, the investigation done by the Police is null and void.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and only to settle the civil scores, respondent No.2 lodged the private complaint, which is not in accordance with law and therefore, the same is not maintainable. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are vague and baseless and proceeding further with the criminal case against them is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against them.
5
SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein it is observed that once the Court refers a complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., to a particular Police Station, then the said Police alone shall complete the investigation and file report, but they have no right to suo moto transfer the file to any other Police Station.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the criminal petitions are not maintainable as there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The Petitioners by suppressing the real and material facts filed these petitions to protect themselves from legal punishment and to escape from the clutches of law.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that the case of the petitioners is that the complaint was transferred from one Police Station to another Police Station, which is not in accordance with law. On going through the 1 LAWS (APH) 2003-6-39 6 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 said contention, learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of fair and unbiased investigation, Senior Police Officer i.e., Inspector of Police, Moghalpura was entrusted the matter for fair and proper investigation. He further submitted that the case was registered in the year 2015, the Investigating Officer of Mir Chowk Police Station was very close to the petitioners, as such, he failed to take action in accordance with law and there is also an inordinate delay of two years, in conducting the investigation on the part of the Investigation. Being frustrated by the inaction and delay of the Investigating Officer, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police Station. Thereafter, when there was again delay in taking up the investigation, respondent No.2 filed one more complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and the same was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mir Chowk Division, who after examining the matter, has appointed Inspector of Police, Moghalpura, Hyderabad, as the Investigating Officer, Moghalpura, who in turn has completed the Investigation and handed over the case to the Inspector of Police, Moghalpura instead of Sub Inspector of Police, 7 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 Mirchowk. Therefore, there is no suo moto transfer of the case to any other Police Station as stated by the petitioners. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petitions.
12. In support of his submission, learned counsel for respondent No.2, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. P.B. Sourabhan and others 2 , it is observed that a higher officer can appoint an officer to conduct further investigation in a fair and unbiased manner quoting Section 36 of Cr.P.C.
13. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalmuni Devi vs. State of Bihar 3, it is observed that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Komal 2 2016 LawSuit (SC) 206 3 2000 LawSuit (SC) 1956 8 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 and two others vs. State of U.P. and Another 4, wherein in paragraph No.20, it is held as under:
"20. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha maharaj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.,1999 AIR (SC) 2332 and in N.P. Jharia vs. State of M.P., 2007 AIR (SC) 2677, it has been held that even after the Court took cognizance of any offence, on strength of police report first submitted, it is open to Police to conduct further investigation. In such a situation power of Court to direct the Police to conduct further investigation can not have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on Court would only result in encumbering it with burden of searching for all potention accused to be afforded with opportunity of being heard."
15. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes. Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the avermetns made in the complaint and the statements of the witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute 4 2023 LawSuit (All) 1390 9 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
16. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 5, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under:
"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."
17. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that though the civil cases are pending before the Court below, initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of 5 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 10 SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022 process of law. On going through the said contention, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalmuni Devi (supra) the criminal case can be filed even though there are civil disputes between the parties. In the present case, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are that they played fraud in the Government Departments and managed the Officers therein and created forged documents. Further, they beat respondent No.2, therefore, it cannot be said that allegations leads to only civil dispute.
18. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially, the case was transferred from one Police Station to another Police Station without obtaining permission from the Court concerned. On going through the said contention, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.B. Sourabhan (supra), an higher Officer can appoint an officer to conduct further investigation in a fair and unbiased manner quoting Section 36 of Cr.P.C., therefore, there is no illegality in handing over the investigation to the Inspector of Police, Mughalpura. Therefore, there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11
SKS,J Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
19. Further, as seen from the record, petitioners trespassed into the subject premises and beat respondent No.2 and his brother, as a result, they sustained injuries and later, they forged the documents to grab the subject property. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in nature and at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations against them are vague and baseless.
20. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore stated judgments, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petitions to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same are liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 12.07.2024 SAI