Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kakarla Krishnaiah vs The State Of Andhra Prdesh on 7 December, 2021
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: Crl.P. No.6932 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. Office
DATE ORDER
No Note
1. 07.12.2021 CMR, J
Crl.P. No.6932 of 2021
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor takes notice
for 1st respondent/State and requests time to obtain
instructions.
Issue notice to 2nd respondent returnable in four
(04) weeks.
________
CMR, J
I.A.No.1 of 2021
The complaint that was filed by the 2nd
respondent-de facto complainant before the Court of
learned Magistrate, was forwarded under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Pursuant to the said
order of the Court, the present crime came to be
registered in Crime No.185 of 2021 of Obulavaripalli
Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, for the offences
punishable under Sections 196, 209, 447, 225-B, 420, 465,
466, 467, 468, 352, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
The allegations ascribed in the said report are two
fold. The 1st allegation is that the 2nd petitioner fabricated
a document with the forged signature of the de facto
complainant as an agreement to sell in respect of the
property belonging to the de facto complainant.
Therefore, it is stated that the 2nd petitioner has forged
and fabricated an agreement to sell in the name of the de
facto complainant. The 2nd allegation is that the 3rd
petitioner executed a rectification deed in favour of the 1st
petitioner alleging that he is the owner of the said
property and not the de facto complainant.
As regards the first allegation of fabrication and
forgery of agreement of sale is concerned, the 2nd
petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2012 on the file
of learned Junior Civil Judge, Railway Koduru for
specific performance of contract against the de facto
complainant on the basis of the said agreement to sell.
The de facto complainant contested the said suit as a
defendant taking a plea of forgery and fabrication of the
said agreement to sell. However, after full-fledged trial,
the said suit came to be decreed in favour of the 2nd
petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff therein. The
contention of the de facto complainant that the said
agreement to sell is forged, has been negatived in the said
suit. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioners could make
out a strong case to show that the said allegation of
fabrication and forgery of agreement to sell, is false, in
view of the said decree passed for specific performance of
contract on the basis of the said agreement of sale.
As regards the second allegation is concerned, the
alleged rectification deed was executed by the 3rd
petitioner in favour of the 1st petitioner. In a similar
situation, the Honourable Apex Court in the case of
Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and
another ((2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751) relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioners at para Nos.20, 21
and 23 of the said Judgment held that when the
document is executed conveying the property claiming
ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser
under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has
cheated him by making a false representation of
ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the
sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not
by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is
made a co-accused.
The above analogy applies squarely to the present
facts of the case. The de facto complainant is not a party to
the said rectification deed. It was only executed by 3rd
petitioner in favour of 1st petitioner. So, the de facto
complainant, in view of the aforesaid analogy in the
Judgment of Honourable Apex Court, cannot have any
grievance in this regard.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioners could make out a strong prima
facie case warranting interference of this Court to
ascertain in main criminal petition, in exercise of its
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to examine
whether the launching of criminal prosecution against
the petitioners in the given facts and circumstances of the
case, amounts to abuse of process of Court or not.
Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be stay of further proceedings
including arrest of the petitioners herein, who are A-1 to
A-3 pursuant to registration of F.I.R. in Crime No.185 of
2021 of Obulavaripalli Police Station, YSR Kadapa
District, till the next date of hearing.
________
CMR, J
ARR
