Sakilam Narsaiah Vijaya Kumar Vijay ... vs The State Of Telangana

Telangana High Court

Sakilam Narsaiah Vijaya Kumar Vijay ... vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024

                                   1



        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12640 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.374 of 2017 on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 471 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case are that; basing on the private complaint filed by the respondent No.2, the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5, Crime No.236 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 423, 471 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

3. The allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet is that on 26.08.2017 at about 19:00 hours, the Police received a court referred petition by the de-facto complainant, wherein it is mentioned that the de-facto complainant along with LWs 2 and 3 purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.215/A, Ac.4.09 gts in Sy.No.215/AA, Ac.3.00 gts in 2 Sy.No.216/A, Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/AA, Ac.4.00 gts in Sy.No.217, Ac.3.20 gts in Sy.No.217 (total admeasuring Ac.18.19 gts) situated at Anantharam Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from their vendor Lakshmi Singireddy vide Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.7212 of 2005. Since then, the complainant and LWs 2 and 3 were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands and the complainant and LWs 2 and 3 names were mutated in the revenue records and they also got Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. Originally, the land in Sy.No.215 and 216 belongs to Akula Ramaiah, Akula Babaiah, Akula Sathaiah and Akula Narayana and the said property has been partitioned among them and accordingly the said Akula Ramaiah got Ac.8.10 gts under sub Sy.No.215/A and Ac.8.10 gts has been fallen to the Akula Babaiah, Akula Sathaiah, Akula Narayana Branch under sub-Sy.No.215/B and in Sy.No.216 Ac.3.00 gts were fallen to the share of Akula Ramaiah under sub Sy.No.216/A and Akula Babaiah, Sathaiah, Narayana was fallen the remaining Ac.3.00 gts under sub-Sy.No.216/8 and accordingly the parties mentioned above were in possession and enjoyment accordingly.

4. The said Akula Sathaiah i.e., father of accused Nos.1 and 2 got agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.215/B, and Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.216/B, situated at Antharam Village and Gram Panchayat, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District, and the above said Akula Sathaiah sold the above said land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.215/B and Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/B to the vendor of the complainant herein i.e., Manthena Sathyanarayana Raju under Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.2050 of 1982 and the said Manthena Sathyanarayana Raju sold the above property to Singireddy Laxmi under Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.2959 of 2001, dated 04.06.2001. In turn, the said Singireddy Laxmi sold to LWs 1 to 3 vide doc.No.7212 of 2005, dated 03.10.2005. The complainant further submit that the above said Akula Babaiah got land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.215/B and Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/B and since the Akula Babaiah died intestate leaving behind his four daughters, succeeded the property as his legal heirs and four daughters sold the land of Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.215/B and Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/B to Smt. V. Anuradha under a Registered Sale Deed and in turn Anuradha sold the entire land to Singireddy Laxmi under Registered Sale Deed bearing 4 doc.No.7533 of 2003, dated 05.09.2003, in turn the above Singireddy Laxmi sold the above land to LWs 1 to 3 as they purchased the land from legal heirs of Akula Narayana. As such, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not having any land in Sy.No.215 or 216 and the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and other family members of Akula Babaiah and Akula Narayana sold their entire land in the said survey numbers. The LWs 1 to 3 became absolute owners and possessors of entire land and their names are also mutated in the revenue records and also obtained pattedar pass books. Even after knowing the fact that the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 sold away the land, accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with accused Nos.3 to 5 brought into existence of sale deed bearing document.No.2840 of 2006, dated 20.02.2006; document No.1392 of 2016, dated 13.05.2016; and document No.1861 of 2016, dated 24.05.2016, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.15 gts in Sy.No.38/P (Ac.0.02 gts), 40/AA (Ac.0.03 gts). 215/AA (Ac.2.30 gts), 216/AA 9Ac.0.20 gts), situated at Ananthram Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District, only by showing false consideration in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and LWs 2 and 3 and in order to create false litigation in respect of the above said land in collusion with 5 accused No.5 who worked as VRO of Antharam Village, incorporated the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the pahani patrika for the year 2006 of village and created pattedar pass book and title deeds in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2, though accused Nos.1 and 2 sold away the property during their life time.

5. Basing on the same, police registered a case in Crime No.236 of 2016 under Sections 420, 423, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioner-accused No.5 has filed the present criminal petition.

6. As per the investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were colluded with Accused No.5/Vijay Kumar, prepared pass books and title deeds in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring Ac.4.30 gts, instead of Ac.1.00 gts by adding additional extent of Ac.3.30 gts in Sy.No.215/AA and also accused No.5 entered the name in 1-B Namuna register of Anantharam Village and also helped accused Nos.1 and 2 to give pattedar pass books and title deeds from MRO Office. As such, accused No.5 is liable for the offence under Section 420 and 423, 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

7. Heard Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.N.PPrasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation made against petitioner/accused No.5 is that he colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 and none of the allegations will attract the offences alleged as against petitioner-accused No.5, as Tahasildar is the competent person to issue such proceedings. Therefore, the allegation of petitioner-accused No.5 helping the accused Nos.1 to 3 does not arise and there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner- accused No.5 and this petitioner has only complied the orders of Tahasildar and, as such, the learned counsel prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against petitioner-accused No.5.

9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioner/accused No.5 helped the accused Nos.1 and 3 in mutating the record and also to get 7 the pass books knowingly, that the said property was already sold away. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

10. Having regard to the rival submissions and material available on record, it is noted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner-accused No.5 are that he incorporated the name of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the pahani patrika for the year 2006 of village and created Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deeds in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2, though the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 sold his entire land during his lifetime only. Further, with a malafide intention, it is shown as the excess land in the pahani and helped to get the pass book and created false document in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 belonging to the de-facto complainant, whereas, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is that, he is no way related to disputes between the parties and he has only discharged his official duties as a public servant, when public servant proceed, it requires previous sanction from the Government for which petitioner counsel further relied on paras-59 and 60 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 8 A. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma 1 which reads as under:

59. "Thus, although in the present case, the appellant has been discharged from the offences punishable under the PC Act, 1988 yet for IPC offences, he can be proceeded further in accordance with law."

60. "From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can be no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the Court of Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only prerequisite. If the offences on the charge of which, the public servant is expected to be put on trial include the offences other than those punishable under the PC Act, 1988 that is to say under the general law (i.e., IPC), the Court is bound to examine, at the time of cognizance and also, if necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case progresses ) as to whether there is a necessity of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C."

11. Further, since the petitioner is a Government servant, the Court cannot take cognizance without obtaining sanction from the concerned authorities under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab 2 that sanction is necessary 1 (2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 711 2 (2008) 9 SCC 140 9 for the public servant and, as such, prayed the Court as there is no sanction for prosecuting the petitioner-accused No.5, who is a public servant, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Allauddin Khan Vs. State of Bihar and others 3 wherein it is observed that mere pendency of the civil suit is not in any manner impact whether ingredients of criminal offence is made out against the petitioner and also observed that High Court has no jurisdiction to proceed the evidence of proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.

13. In view of the submissions made by both the parties, though there are serious allegations against this petitioner, and while discharging the duties, the petitioner-accused No.5 has colluded with the accused for the mutation proceedings, whereas, the VRO is not the authority for mutation of proceedings and the MRO is the competent authority for the same. Therefore, the allegations against VRO are against the 3 AIR 2019 (SC) 1910 10 procedure in Revenue Department. Therefore, the allegations are baseless. The Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.36 of its judgment in Amod Kumar Kanth Vs. Association of victim of Uphaar Tragedy and Another, 4 "the Magistrate erred in the facts of this case in taking cognizance against the appellant contrary to the mandate of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. On the short ground alone, the appellant succeeds."

14. As the allegations are baseless and sanction also not obtained, the criminal petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused No.5 in C.C.No.374 of 2017 on the file of learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 03.05.2024 ds 4 2023 SCC Online SC 578