Mallidi Venkateswara Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1464 AP

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.6693 of 2021

ORDER:

The 2nd respondent herein had filed a first

information report against the petitioner herein and other

persons, before the Indrapalem police station, East Godavari

District, for offence under Sections 419, 468, 471 & 474 r/w. 34

of the Indian Penal Code and the same was registered as Crime

No.139 of 2016 in the above police station. The complaint of the

2nd respondent was that the brother of the complainant had

purchased 351 Sq. yards of land in Sy.No.110/1 (old) 128/8

(new) at Sivareddy Nagar, Turangi Village and had bequeathed

the said property to the 2nd respondent through a will dated

14.01.2000 and after which he had passed away in the 2019.

The 2nd respondent had then become the absolute owner of the

said property. However, the petitioner and other persons had

propped up an imposter who executed a registered general

power of attorney recording that the possession of the said plot

had been handed over to the petitioner on 01.07.2008.

Subsequently, the petitioner is said to have alienated the

property to the other accused in the complaint.

2. The gravamen of the charge in the report given by

the 2nd respondent is that the petitioner herein, in collaboration

with other accused, had propped up an imposter who had

fabricated and forged the general power of attorney-cum-

possessory agreement in favour of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has now approached this Court by

way of the present Criminal Petition for quashing Crime No.139

of 2016 on the file of Indrapalem police station, East Godavari

District. The defense of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent

had filed O.S.No.850 of 2014 in the Court of II Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Kakinada for declaration that the 2nd respondent is

the absolute owner of the plot and the registered possessory

sale agreement-cum-general power of attorney executed by the

alleged imposter and subsequently documents in favour of the

other accused are void and for a mandatory injunction for

removal of certain structures that are said to have been

constructed in the site. This suit was allowed on 02.03.2020

and an appeal has been filed against the said Judgment by the

6th defendant therein and the same is pending before the

District Court, Kakinada.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the

registration of Crime No.139 of 2016 is barred by latches and by

the fact that the dispute is a civil dispute which is already the

subject matter of O.S.No.850 of 2014 and the subsequent

appeal.

5. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the

petitioner would rely upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the cases of Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs.

State of Karnataka & ors1 and Anand Kumar Mohatta & ors. Vs.

State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home & anr2 to contend that

matter of this nature involving complicated questions of civil

nature cannot be treated as a criminal complaint and any such

complaint would have to be quashed and set aside.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anand

Kumar Mohatta & ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of

Home & anr was dealing with the situation where a development

agreement had been executed on 03.06.1993 for developing a

certain property by constructing a high-rise building comprising

of flats. The owner of the land had then informed the developer

AIR 2021 SC 5298

2019 11 SCC 706

on 14.03.2011 that it does not wish to develop the property,

without returning the advance amount given by the developer.

As the money had not been returned, the developer had filed a

criminal complaint in the police station after which investigation

was taken up. At that stage the owner of the land had sought to

get the said complaint quashed by approaching the Hon'ble

High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This

application was rejected and an appeal was preferred to the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. One additional fact which

needs to be taken into account is the transfer of the property by

the land lord to his wife during the pendency of these

proceedings.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after going into

the issues raised before them had held that dispute was

primarily a civil dispute and the same cannot be converted into

a criminal case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had also

held that the transfer of the property in the name of the wife

cannot really be treated as an offence under Section 406 of

Cr.P.C. After holding thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

referred its earlier Judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs.

Bhajan Lal3 and had held that the guidelines 1, 3 & 5 set out in

Paragraph-102 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal case

would be applicable to the case and had quashed the first

information report.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of

Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. State of Karnataka & ors 4 was again

dealing with a dispute which arose out of the terms of a Joint

Development Agreement and a Supplementary Agreement of the

development of a property and after considering the facts of the

case the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had again held that

the dispute is essentially a civil dispute which cannot partake

the character of a criminal offence which requires investigation

under law.

9. A perusal of both the Judgments would show that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, on an appreciation of facts,

in the respective cases, had come to the conclusion that the

disputes were in the nature of civil disputes and could be

treated as criminal offences.

1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

AIR 2021 SC 5298

10. In the present case, the complaint of the 2nd

respondent is that an imposter had been set up to forge and

fabricate documents of title in favour of the petitioner. It is true

that the 2nd respondent had also moved the Civil Court three

years prior to filing of the first information report. However, that

would not, in the opinion of this Court, detract from the

investigating officer conducting an appropriate investigation as

the allegations, Prima Facie, indicate a criminal breach of law.

11. Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the

petitioner would also contend that the inordinate delay in filing

of the complaint in conjunction with the fact that the complaint

is being filed five years after the filing of the suit clearly

indicates that the complaint is an after thought filed to

pressurize the petitioner and other persons arrayed as the

accused in the complaint, to accept the terms of the 2nd

respondent.

12. Even assuming for a moment that the intention of

the 2nd respondent has been to force a compromise, by filing a

criminal complaint, the fact remains that the contents of the

first information report make out a case for investigation. The

veracity of the claims made in the complaint is a matter for

investigation and subsequent actions of the investigation officer

would defend upon his satisfaction as to whether the allegations

in the complaint are true or not. However, the said delay cannot

be a ground for this Court to interfere in the investigation at

this stage.

13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As

the first information report is of the year 2016. There shall be a

direction to the investigation officer to complete the

investigation expeditiously and in any event within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall

be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

16.03.2023 BSM

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6693 of 2021

16-03-2023

BSM