Telangana High Court
Koneru Veerabadra Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4037 of 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.373 of 2021, on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulugu, registered for the offences under Sections 120(b), 464, 471, 420 read with Section 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the first petitioner has taken land to an extent of Acs.20.00 Gts., on lease from four individuals viz., Sri Bontala Iylaiah, Sri Kanneboina Kattaiah, Sri Immadi Kattaiah and Sri Jeela Chandraiah, who were all holding lands in Sy.No.60/2 situated at Mallampally Village, Mulugu Mandal, they having been assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 Gts., each in the year 1991. Thereafter, on an application made by petitioner No.1, a mining lease for the mineral "Laterite" was granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.100, Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated 2 02.04.1998 over the said extent of Acs. 20.00 Gts. A lease deed was executed by the Assistant Director, Mines & Geology Department on 04.09.1998 in the year 1998 and the first petitioner was carrying on mining operations from the year 1998 till 2004. Some Maoists had targeted the first petitioner and blasted the vehicles carrying mined mineral. Subsequently, the lease was extended up to the year 2019 and during the year 2004, one Sri Pindi Ravi has instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners herein vide O.S.No.553 of 2004, on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal contending that himself and his wife were the actual owners of the said extent of Acs. 20.00 Gts., having purchased the same by way of simple sale deeds and he was granted interim injunction based on the said sale deeds.
3. These petitioners made a complaint against the said Sri Pindi Ravi vide Crime No.16 of 2011 stating that he forged and created documents said to have been executed by persons who are no longer alive and the said Pindi Ravi also filed complaint on 02.04.2012 vide FIR No.49 of 2012 3 stating that the death certificates issued by the Tahasildar were forged and that the petitioners herein have filed a criminal complaint against him on the basis of such forged documents. The police after verification stated that it is a counterblast to the case in Crime No.16 of 2011 filed by the petitioners and that the allegations against the petitioners are exaggerated and false. Later, the police filed final report on 13.06.2013 in FIR No.49 of 2012 closing the same. On the instigation of one Pindi Ravi, the de facto complainant filed a complaint with identical allegations as made by the said Pindi Ravi that the petitioners herein have conspired with the Officers of the Tahasildar office and created forged death certificates by wrongly showing the dates of death. The petition filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C by the 3rd respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mulugu leading to registration of F.I.R.No.62 of 2015 and on comparison with the complaint which lead to registration of FIR No.49 of 2012 would clearly establish that the very same death certificates of the above named persons viz., Sri Kanneboina Kattaiah, Sri Jeela Chandraiah and Emmadi Kattaiah are once again 4 complained to be forged by the petitioners. It is further submitted that once the competent officers have conducted investigation with respect to the three death certificates that was the subject matter of the complaint in FIR No.49 of 2012 dated 02.04.2012 and once they have come to a conclusion that the allegations are false, it is no longer open to the 2nd respondent to register the very same complaint, just because the complainant has changed and continuing the prosecution amounts to double jeopardy. It is further submitted that the petitioners were targeted by two groups of individuals i.e., one Sri M.Malla Reddy and Sri Pindi Ravi. Several cases have been instituted on the file of this Court, apart from various complaints against each other before various police stations and Courts below as well. It is further submitted that the orders in writ petitions and writ appeals show that the subject land is Government land over which the first petitioner has been granted mining lease. If that being so, the claim of the de facto complainant which has been at the instigation of Sri Pindi Ravi pales into insignificance, as the very basis of their claim that Sri Pindi Ravi had purchased the lands 5 from assignees have been invalidated by the Collector. As such, the FIR and charge sheet both deserves to be quashed.
4. Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that earlier also with the same set of allegations FIR was registered was against the petitioners and the said FIR was closed after thorough enquiry and again with the same allegations, the FIR in the present case is registered and the same amounts to double jeopardy. He would further submit that the subject property for which mining is granted belongs to the Government and the same was stated by the Collector. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C. No.373 of 2021 are liable to be quashed.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would submit that there are serious allegations against the 6 petitioners and previously, two complaints were given and they were not investigated properly. As such, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. Having regard to the submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, the averments in the charge sheet shows that there is tampering of the original official records i.e., Maranamula Register by inserting the names of deceased (i) Kanneboina Kattaiah, (ii) Jeela Chandraiah and (iii) Immadi Kattaiah and changing the serial numbers of the said register which are in possession and custody of accused Nos.4 and 5 and further their enquiry shows that the deceased Sri Immadi Kattaiah and Sri Jeela Chandraiah had taken an amount of Rs.150/- each per month as old aged pension by putting their thumb impression prior to their death up to the year 2002 and that the Tahasildar issued report regarding the actual date of death of the deceased Sri I. Kattaiah, Sri J. Chandraiah and Sri Immadi Kattaiah for the year 2002-2003 by verifying the Maranamula Register and examining the blood relatives of the above deceased by visiting Gollawada of Mallampally Village. 7 The Tahasildar, Mulugu has enquired into the matter in Gollawada, Mallampally Village on 16.04.2016 and obtained sworn statement of the closed relatives of the deceased persons and as per the deposition, certificates of death were issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Mulugu, which appear to be correct. As per enquiry and as per the certificates of death issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Mallampally, Sri Kanneboina Kataiah died on 20.03.2002, Sri Chandraiah died on 15.06.2003 and Sri Immadi Kattaiah died on 20.03.2022. They also tallied with the signatures of Sri Chintham Odelu, VAO with reference to pay bill register, whereas the Panchayath Secretary of Mallampall Village has issued the death certificates as above and these petitioners along with accused Nos.4 and 5 created document stating that Sri Immadi Kattaiah said to have died on 23.11.1999, Sri Jeela Chandraiah died on 27.11.1999 and Sri Kanneboina Kattaiah on 31.12.1999. Therefore, the same appear to be tampered by way of subsequent inclusions. Further, contention of the petitioners is that with same allegations previously F.I.R registered and closed by the Police, the petitioner cannot be 8 tried for the same allegations which amounts to double jeopardy whereas record shows that he was not tried for the same allegations previously double jeopardy applies only when petitioner tried for the same offence for second time, as such there is no force in the said contention.
8. Having regard to the averments in the charge sheet wherein serious allegations are levelled against these petitioners and in view of the fact that the earlier FIR is closed is not a ground to quash the proceedings and the same does not comes under jeopardy and allegations requires trial.
9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"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 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 9 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."
10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (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.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 06.06.2024 ktm