Rudraraju Ruma Sankara Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7515 AP

  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

 CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7635 of 2021 and 6526 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:-

     Criminal Petition No.7635 of 2021 is filed, under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short "Cr.P.C."), by the petitioners herein who are A1 and

A3 in C.C.No.250 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XV

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, to

quash the Proceedings against them in the above case.

     Criminal Petition 6526 of 2021 is filed, under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short

"Cr.P.C."), by the petitioners herein who are A4 and A5 in

C.C.No.250 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XV

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, to

quash the Proceedings against them in the above case.

     Since these two Criminal petitions arose out of the

same Calendar Case, they are being disposed of by way

of common order.
                                2




     2.    The    police   filed   charge    sheet   after   the

investigation    conducted    on    the     report   given   by

2nd respondent herein, which reads,

On 17.7.2019, 2nd respondent gave report to the

Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station. It is

alleged in the report that one Rudraraju Nirankara Varma

(A2) is known to her from the year 2016 and he is a

Director of Arya Mines and Minerals Private Limited,

Hyderabad, for which firm her husband is Geological

Consultant. One Vegeshna Ramesh Raju, her husband and

some others are partners in Way Granites and Trading

firm. In January, 2018 Sri Rudraraju Nirankara Varma

(A2) proposed to sell Ac.0.61 cents of land situated in

Garugubilli Village, which was originally owned by her, but

later sold to Avya Mines and Minerals Private Limited

under an unregistered sale-deed. On 23.01.2018, A2 asked

her to come to Sub-Registrar Office. She along with her

husband went to the Sub-Registrar Office by 5.00 p.m.,

and then she was given with some documents by A2 and

she signed the documents after thorough verification and

gave the same to Rudraraju Nirankara Varma. Later due to

some grudges, Rudraraju Nirankara Varma filed a cheque

bounce case against her husband at Hyderabad. When her

husband went to attend the Court on 14.6.2019, A1

threatened her husband stating that his days have come

closure and that he did not hand over documents related to

the property at Thangudubilli to Shankar Raju and that

the land situated at Bhimavaram is no more his (husband

of the reporter) property and if he i.e., her husband goes

ahead in respect of the said land or initiates Court

proceedings, he will see his end. On that both her husband

and herself raised suspicion and obtained Encumbrance

Certificate relating to her land bearing Survey No.5 and

5/2, which is an extent of Ac.0.44 cents situated in

Bhimavaram and came to know that on 23.1.2018 the said

land was registered in the name of Vegeshna Ramesh Raju.

Thereby they came to know that some cheating took place

and that Rudraraju Nirankara Varma (A2) must have

created the document by committing forgery of her

signature on 23.1.2018, when she sold Ac.0.61 cents of

land situated in Garugubilli village in favour of Inkuri

Parvathi Devi. She informed the same to

one Sri Nadimipalli Satyanarayana Raju who came from

Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam and after examining the

documents he informed that Rudraraju Nirankara Varma

(A2) and Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) must have

committed forgery with the help of employees in

Sub-Registrar Office, Anandapuram. Thus, it is stated that

Rudraraju Nirankara Varma and Vegeshna Ramesh Raju,

Indukuri Parvathi Devi, Indukuri Sitaramaraju and P. Yesu

Raju (A4) have together conspired along with A1 to A3 and

cheated her, forged her signature relating to her land

situated in Bhimavaram, and hence take action against

them.

Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police

conducted investigation and filed charge sheet alleging that

the A1 to A5 are liable for punishment under Sections 420,

468, 471 r/w 120-B IPC and that A6 to A9 are liable for

punishment under Sections 420 and 423 IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners/A1, A3, A4 and A5, learned Public Prosecutor

for 1st respondent and learned counsel for 2nd respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

that accusation against the petitioners herein is that they

contacted the Sub-Registrar and staff in the office of Sub-

Registrar, Anandapuram and managed them to register

false document relating to land of Pericherla Sasi Prabha

(L.W.1) located at Bhimavaram while registering genuine

document relating to Garugubilli lands. Thereafter A1

exchanged information with A2 and A5, who came to Sub-

Registrar's office and then as per instructions of A1, the A2

asked the de facto complainant to attend the Sub-

Registrar's office, Anandapuram for execution and

registration. Except making arrangements for registration,

there is absolutely no other allegations made against the

petitioners herein. Even accepting the accusations against

the petitioners herein are true, the offences under Sections

420, 468, 471 r/w 120-B IPC have not been made out.

5. Perused the entire material on record.

6. A1 is one of the partners in M/s. Way Granite's

and Trading Firm, Visakhapatnam, A2 is the Director of

Avya Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, A3 is cousin

brother of A1 and brother-in-law of A5. They are all doing

Real Estate business. A1 also assists the A4 in the Real

Estate business of A4. A registered sale deed vide

document No.351 of 2018 in respect of Ac.0.43 cents of

land bearing Sy.Nos.5, 5/2 situated in Bhimavaram Town,

West Godavari District is created as if it was executed by

the de facto complainant/ the victim by name Pericherla

Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) in favour of Vegeshna Ramesh Raju

(L.W.5). It is forged one. Thereafter Vegeshna Ramesh Raju

(L.W.5) sold the property to the petitioners herein who are

all residents of the same village. It is stated in the charge

sheet that the investigation revealed that A1, A3, A4 and

Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) met A2 in the Guest House

and they all conspired to get registration in respect of lands

belonging to Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) the victim, as

per their preplan and as per the requirement of A1, the A2

furnished copies of sale deed vide document No.1716 of

2015, dated 28.10.2015 relating to the land at Garugubilli

and all of them dispersed except A2 and A3 who stayed

there for the night in the guest house. On 22.1.2018, A1

with the assistance of A3 got created a fake draft sale deed

(Doc.No.351 of 2018, dated 23.1.2018) and by forging the

signature of Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) as if she

executed, and got it registered in favour of Vegeshna

Ramesh Raju (L.W.5). In fact the entire conspiracy has

been concealed and has been planned behind the back of

the de facto complainant. The accused has falsely claimed

that on 23.1.2018, A3 got prepared draft document relating

to Garugubilli land of Ac.0.61 cents (sale document No.352

of 2018, dated 23.1.2018) and he took the same to

Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) who perused the same and

returned in an envelope without remarks and A3 handed

over the same to A2.

7. On 23.1.2018 at about 2.30 P.M., A1 to A3

visited Sub-Registrar Office Anandapuram and contacted

the Sub-Registrar and staff and managed for the

registration of the genuine document relating to

Garugubilli lands and false document relating to land of

Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) located at Bhimavaram.

Thereafter A1 exchanged information with A2 and A5, who

came to Sub-Registrar's office and then as per instructions

of A1, A2 asked the de facto complainant to attend the

Sub-Registrar's office, Anandapuram for execution and

registration. Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) authorized

Indukuri Parvathi Devi (L.W.4) as the representative

through A1 for registration. At about 5.00 p.m., both

Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) and her husband entered

the Sub-Registrar Office, Anandapuram and both

Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) and I.Parvathi Devi (L.W.4)

signed the sale deed relating to the land situated in

Garugubilli village. The staff of Sub-Registrar's office have

obtained their finger prints and Irish identity. Then the

power was cut off and during that time the Sub-Registrar's

office informed that the Irish identity and finger prints

obtained are not proper and wanted for second time

wherein the fake document relating to Bhimavaram lands

was placed before the Sub-Registrar who registered the

same as Doc.No.351 of 2018. In respect of Garugubilli

lands registered sale deed vide document No.352 of 2018

has been recorded and thereafter all of them dispersed.

8. On perusal of the entire record, it goes to show

that in Sub-Registrar Office, Anandapuram, two

documents were registered at the same time on the very

same day one after the other and that one transaction that

had taken place is genuine and the other transaction

recorded in Doc.No.351 of 2018 is a fake and it is

fabricated document standing in the name of Vegeshna

Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) of Bhimavaram. Thereafter within a

short time the same property has been sold to the

petitioners herein by Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5).

9. The short question that arises for consideration is

that whether there is conspiracy amongst all the accused

in committing the alleged offences and whether they

managed the staff in the Sub-Registrar Office in such a

way that two documents have to be registered on the same

day one is with the knowledge of the de facto complainant

herein and another one i.e., to document bearing No.351 of

2018, which is an agreement of sale-cum-GPA without the

knowledge of the de facto complainant. The said document

according to prosecution is a fake and fabricated and the

same has been brought into existence by the petitioners

herein as a result of conspiracy. Truth or otherwise of the

said accusations has to be decided in the course of trial.

Prima facie on the face of the accusations, it is clear they

are serious and they have to be taken into account. For

accepting those accusations, there is some material on

record against the petitioners herein. At this stage it is too

premature for this Court to go into minute details of the

case and the same has to be ascertained during the course

of trial. The defences that are sought to be raised are all

being questions of fact, they have to be established in the

course of trial. This Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is

primarily concerned with the accusations that are made in

the charge-sheet and other connecting material available

on record, but cannot make a roving enquiry about the

truthfulness or falsity of the same.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance

on the judgment of this Court in Criminal Petition No.6956

of 2018, dated 05.7.2018. The facts therein are entirely

different. This Court quashed the proceedings against A2

therein and it is only on the ground that A2 was an

attestor for a document and as such he cannot be imputed

with knowledge of the contents of the document and so he

cannot be prosecuted. It is not the case here much less for

the petitioners who are A1, A3, A4 and A5 and on the other

hand the petitioners are said to have actively participated

in obtaining registration of a fabricated or false document,

but not simply attested the document.

12. In view of the same, this is premature for this

Court to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.250 of

2021 pending on the file of the Court of XV Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam,

Visakhapatnam District. Hence the Criminal Petition is

liable to be dismissed. However the presence of the

petitioners who are A1, A3, A4 and A5 dispensed with

except on those dates whenever the learned Magistrate

feels the presence of the petitioners is essential.

13. Accordingly, both the Criminal Petition are

dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the

Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date:

GR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.7635 of 2021 and 6526 of 2021

Date:

GR

9. However, considering the age of the petitioner

No.1, who is about 88 years old, her presence is

dispensed with in the trial Court and that she shall

appear only on two occasions i.e., for examination

under Section 239 Cr.P.C., under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

and whenever the learned Magistrate specifically

directs for her appearance.

On 23.1.2018 at about 2.30 P.M., A1 to A3 visited

Sub-Registrar Office Anandapuram and contacted the Sub-

Registrar and staff and managed for the registration of the

genuine document relating to Garugubilli lands and false

document relating to land of Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1)

located at Bhimavaram. Thereafter A1 exchanged

information with A2 and A5, who came to Sub-Registrar's

office and then as per instructions of A1, the A2 asked the

de facto complainant to attend the Sub-Registrar's office,

Anandapuram for execution and registration. Vegeshna

Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) authorized Indukuri Parvathi Devi

(L.W.4) as the representative through A1 for registration. At

about 5.00 p.m., both Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) and

her husband entered the Sub-Registrar Office,

Anandapuram and both Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) and

I.Parvathi Devi (L.W.4) signed the sale deed relating to the

land situated in Garugubilli village. The staff of Sub-

Registrar's office have obtained their finger prints, Irish

identity. Then the power was cut off and during that time

the Sub-Registrar's office informed that the Irish identity

and finger prints obtained are not proper and wanted for

second time wherein the fake document relating to

Bhimavaram lands was placed before the Sub-Registrar

who registered the same as Doc.No.351 of 2018. In respect

of Garugubilli lands registered sale deed vide document

No.352 of 2018 has been recorded and thereafter all of

them dispersed.