Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Putty Srinivasa Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 August, 2024
`
APHC010329092020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 5344/2020
Between:
Putty Srinivasa Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
2
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in
F.I.R. No.167 of 2019 of Thulluru Police Station, Guntur District,
registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471
read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").
2. Petitioners herein are the accused. Respondent No.2 is the
complainant. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint in the Thullur
Police Station against the petitioners for the offences referred supra
alleging that his father - Putty Anjaneyulu is the second son of his
grand-father, late Putty Thirupathaiah. one Mr.Putty Hanumantha
Rao is the elder brother of his father and Putty Srinivasa Rao is the
younger brother and Naga Siromani is the younger sister of his
father. His grand-father Sri Putty Thirupathaiah bequeathed Ac.1.00
land from his father Veeraiah. The grand-father of the petitioner, out
of his income from the said land, purchased Ac.2.03 cents in his
name and Ac.1.45 cents in his wife's name i.e. grandmother of the
petitioner. His Grand-mother Smt. Putty Thirupathamma was given
Ac.0.66 cents of land as Sridhanam. His father's elder brother Sri
Putty Hanumantha Rao is a government teacher and his paternal
aunt Nagasiromani was married long back and is residing with her
family. His father's younger brother, Sri Putty Srinivasa Rao got
registered property of an extent of Ac.5.14 cents of land and Ac.0.08
cents of house site belonging to the grand-father of the petitioner, in
his name and his family members vide Document No.6250/2015 of
SRO of Tadikonda, dt.28-08-2015. At the time of said registration,
Will dated 10.08.1994 with stamp numbers 7266, 7267 and 7268
submitted in the register office were forged with the thumb
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
impressions of his grand-father. The thumb impressions of his
grand-father on another Will bearing No. 7267, 7268 and 7269,
dated 10.08.1994 were also forged to bequeath properties in favour
of his grand-mother. When the thumb impressions on the Will were
sent to truth labs, Hyderabad for comparison with original thumb
impressions (Doc.1977), they opined, "that the thumb impressions
are not identical". The petitioners have been enjoying joint family
properties with an intention to cheat the complainant and other
family members.
3. It is further alleged that about 2 months prior to the date of
complaint, while the complainant along with his brother-in-law,
N.Hari going towards Thulluru, petitioner No.1 stopped them on the
main road opposite to MRO office, abused them and beat the
complainant for meddling with property issues and warned him.
Therefore, the complainant requested the police authorities to take
action against the petitioner, his wife and his daughter for forging a
Will deed with forged thumb impressions of grandfather of the
complainant with an intention to cheat the complainant and also
requested to take action against Bellamkonda Paparao and
Paricherla Satyanarayana for acting as attesting witnesses in the
said fabricated Will. Basing on the said complaint, police registered
F.I.R. No.167 of 2019 on the file of Thulluru Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 341, 506
and 323 read with 34 of I.P.C.
4. The present petition is filed to quash the said F.I.R.No.167 of
2019 on the ground that the alleged Will dated 10.08.1994 referred
in the complaint is proved to be genuine in O.S.No.22 of 2014 on
the file of Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, which was filed by the
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
father of the complainant for partition of family properties including
the property which was subject matter of the Will dated 10.08.1994,
but the said fact of filing O.S.No.22 of 2014 and dismissal of the suit
O.S.No.22 of 2014 was suppressed while filing the present
complaint. The father of respondent No.2 neither filed any rejoinder
disputing the authenticity of the Will nor took steps to send it to
expert for opinion. The father of respondent No.2 filed a fake death
certificate dated 16.06.2015 in O.S.No.22 of 2014 to show that Late
Thirupathaiah died on 18.10.1993, but originally, the said
Thirupathaiah died on 17.10.1994, and the RDO issued proceedings
vide Rc.No.9169/2016-H, dated 05.06.2017 with regard to the death
of P.Thirupathaiah and cancelled the entry which was recorded as
18.10.1993. Later, petitioner filed a report against respondent No.2
and his father for fabricating death certificate of P.Thirupathaih,
which was registered as FIR No.117 of 2019 on 26.05.2019 on the
file of Tadikonda Police Station, Guntur District, and immediately
after 2 days i.e. on 29.05.2019 as a counter blast to the said case,
respondent No.2 filed the present case against the petitioners
alleging forgery, though the Will was proved to be genuine in the
Civil Court. Once the competent Civil Court held that the Will was
proved to be genuine in a Civil Case and passed a decree, the
question of initiating criminal prosecution for forgery of the same
does not arise. Further, O.S.No.38 of 2018 filed by respondent No.2
for declaring him as owner of suit schedule property Ac.0.84 cents
in D.No.401/D2 and for cancellation of gift deed executed by
petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2 as null and void is
pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, but by
suppressing the filing of O.S.No.38 of 2018, the present complaint
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
has been filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners. Further,
respondent No.2 stated in the complaint that he was allegedly
threatened and beaten by the petitioners two months back, but he
did not explain the reason for delay in lodging the present complaint
after 2 months from the date of incident, and requested to quash the
proceedings in FIR No.167 of 2019 on the file of Thulluru Police
Station.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that
petitioner No.1 got registered property of an extent of Ac.5.14 cents
and Ac.0.08 cents of house site in his name vide Doc.No.6250 of
2015 of SRO of Tadikonda, dated 28.08.2015, at the time of said
registration the petitioners submitted forged Will dated 10.08.1994.
Further, about 2 months prior to the date of complaint, while
respondent No.2 along with others was going towards Thulluru,
petitioner No.1 abused respondent No.2 and beat him for meddling
with the properties. Therefore, the acts allegedly committed by
petitioner No.1 would constitute offence punishable under Sections,
420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. and requested to dismiss the criminal
petition.
6. On 26.11.2020 when the matter came up for admission, this
Court passed the following interim order:
".......Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be a direction to the investigation officer not to
take any coercive steps against the petitioner till the next date of
hearing."
7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel
representing both parties and on perusal of the material available on
record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in
F.I.R.No.167 of 2019 on the file of the Thulluru Police Station,
Guntur, are liable to be quashed by exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"
P O I N T:
8. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
9. Section 482 of Cr.P.C saves the inherent powers of the High
Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to
any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any
Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is an obvious
proposition that when a Court has authority to make an order, it
must have also power to carry that order into effect. If an order can
lawfully be made, it must be carried out; otherwise it would be
useless to make it. The authority of the Court exists for the
advancement of justice, and if any attempt is made to abuse that
authority so as to produce injustice, the Court must have power to
prevent that abuse. In the absence of such power the administration
of law would fail to serve the purpose for which alone the Court
exists, namely to promote justice and to prevent injustice. Section
482 of Cr.P.C confers no new powers but merely safeguards
existing powers possessed by the High Court. Such power has to be
exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and this power is external
in nature to meet the ends of justice.
10. Time and again, the scope of powers of this Court under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were highlighted by the Apex Court in long
line of perspective pronouncements, which are as follows:
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
11. In "R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab 1 ", the Apex Court laid
down the following principles:
(i) Where institution/continuance of criminal proceedings against
an accused may amount to the abuse of the process of the court
or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure
the ends of justice;
(ii) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance of the said proceeding, e.g. want of
sanction;
(iii) where the allegations in the First Information Report or the
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,
do not constitute the offence alleged; and
(iv) where the allegations constitute an offence alleged but there
is either no legal evidence adduced or evidence adduced clearly
or manifestly fails to prove the charge.
12. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the
High Court to exercise its inherent power to prevent abuse of the
process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of
the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in
cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is
frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the
complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken
by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in
exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482. It is not,
however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of
the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in
conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it
appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the
AIR 1960 SC 866
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the
offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that
the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. In that event there
would be no justification for interference by the High Court as held
by the Apex Court in "Mrs.Dhanalakshmi v. R.Prasanna Kumar2"
13. In "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3 " the Apex Court
considered in detail the powers of High Court under Section 482
and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or
FIR. The Apex Court summarized the legal position by laying down
the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of
their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
AIR 1990 SC 494
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
14. Keeping in view the above principles, I would like to examine
the case on hand.
15. The main allegation made in the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2 is that the petitioners fabricated the Will dated
10.08.1994 to grab the family properties. It is an undisputed fact
that the Will dated 10.08.1994 was proved to be genuine in
O.S.No.22 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.
The said suit was filed by the father of respondent No.2 for partition
of family properties including the property shown in the Will dated
10.08.1994, wherein the trial Court held that the Will dated
10.08.1994 is genuine and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated
19.12.2017. Against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.22
of 2014, an appeal A.S.No.19 of 2018 was preferred by father of
respondent No.2 and the same is pending on the file of Principal
District Judge, Guntur. Further, the suit O.S.No.38 of 2018 filed by
respondent No.2 against the petitioners for declaring him as owner
of suit schedule property and for cancellation of gift deed executed
by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.2, is pending before the
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. Father of respondent No.2 filed
fake death certificate dated 16.06.2015 in O.S.No.22 of 2014.
Against which, petitioner No.1 filed a report against respondent No.2
and his father and the same was registered as FIR No.117 of 2019
on 26.05.2019, and immediately after 2 days i.e. on 29.05.2019,
respondent No.2 filed the present case against the petitioners.
16. Appeal A.S.No.19 of 2018 filed against the decree and
judgment passed in O.S.No.22 of 2014, wherein the alleged Will
dated 10.08.1994 was proved as genuine, is pending before the
Principal District Judge, Guntur and O.S.No.38 of 2018 filed by
respondent No.2 against the petitioners is also pending before the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. If, really, the dispute is with
regard to forgery, fabrication of Will dated 10.08.1994 and its
genuineness, the same can be decided in a pending civil suit and
appeal suit referred above. But, resorting to criminal proceedings on
the basis of alleged forged document, which was already proved as
genuine in O.S.No.22 of 2014 before the civil Court, is nothing but
an abuse of process of the Court. Two parallel proceedings against
one another, both in civil and criminal courts cannot be prosecuted
for the reason that, the finding if any given either in civil or criminal
court will have its own impact on the other matter pending before
the Court.
17. In "Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others 4"
the Apex Court held that , while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This
power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of
(2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 673
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not
depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential
ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also
have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and
is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court
should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse
of process of Court.
18. In "Mohd. Khalid Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 5" the
Apex Court held that when civil suit is pending where the ownership
of the property has to be decided in the pending suit as the same is
subject matter of the suit, in such circumstances, pending civil
litigation, criminal proceedings cannot be primarily prosecuted.
19. If, these principles are applied to the present facts of the
case, when appeal suit No.19 of 2018 is pending before the
competent civil court against the decree and judgment passed in
O.S.No.22 of 2014, wherein the trial Court held that the Will dated
10.08.1994 is genuine, and the present complaint is filed alleging
fabrication and forgery of the Will dated 10.08.1994, to avoid
conflicting judgments, I am of the view that the proceedings in
criminal case has to be quashed while giving liberty to the
complainant to renew his request by filing a fresh complaint after
disposal of the civil appeal, in the event of the Civil Court coming to
the conclusion that the agreement is a forged document, since the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 506 r/w 34 IPC
(2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 679
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
are punishable with imprisonment upto 7 years and the limitation will
not come in the way of the prosecution to file a compliant afresh on
the basis of findings recorded by the civil court.
20. If, for any reason, this type of practice is encouraged in every
civil suit/appeal, there will be parallel criminal proceedings, more
particularly, in suits for title and even for recovery of money on the
basis of promissory notes and cheques. Unless the Courts, at least
in the higher courts, curb such practices, the parties may go on
abusing process of the Court to wreck vengeance against one
another, thereby giving colour of criminality to civil litigation, pending
on the file of different Courts. To prevent such abuse, Criminal
Procedure Code conferred power on the High Court to exercise
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings to meet
the ends of justice, while rendering ex debito justice.
21. Further, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in "Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi6"
to contend that the delay in lodging F.I.R. is fatal to the case of the
case of the prosecution and requested to quash the F.I.R. on the
ground of delay in lodging F.I.R. In the said judgment, the Apex
Court held as follows:
"In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court
is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the
report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to
make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment
or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the
unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented
before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is
(2007) 12 SCC 641
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the
Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for
satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the
delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case."
22. But, in the recent judgment in "Shantaben Bhurabhai
Bhuriya Vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors 7 " the Apex
Court held as follows:
"Even otherwise, on the ground of delay in lodging
FIR/complaint, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The aspect of delay is required to be considered during
the trial and during the trial when the complainant is examined on
oath and a question is put to him/her on delay and he/she can very
well explain the delay in his/her cross examination. But on the
aforesaid ground, entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in
exercise of powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure."
23. In view of the principle laid down in "Shantaben Bhurabhai
Bhuriya Vs. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari and Ors" (referred
supra), the ground of delay in lodging F.I.R. is not available to the
petitioners.
24. In the present case, the complaint was lodged alleging that
the petitioners fabricated the Will dated 10.08.1994, however, the
said Will was proved as genuine in O.S.No.22 of 2014.
AIR 2021 SC 5368
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
25. On this aspect, the Apex Court in "Rajeshbhai Muljibhai
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Another 8 " held that criminal
investigation into a matter which is in issue and especially when the
question of validity of a document is an issue before the civil Court,
it would not be permissible to conduct a criminal investigation as it
would prejudice the rights and interests of the persons propounding
the said document. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in paragraph No.20 are as follows:
"20. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015,
leave to defend was granted to respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar
on 19.04.2016. On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the
said Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed in the suit
were sent to the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has
opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the
sample signatures which were of respondent No.2-
Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter, complaint was filed by
Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR No.I194/2016 was
registered on 28.12.2016 against the appellants for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114
IPC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015, issue No.5 has
been framed by the Court "whether the defendant proved that the
plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created
forged receipts". When the issue as to the genuineness of the
receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, in our view, the
FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would
prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them
in the civil suit."
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down a principle that
when a civil Court is seized of the question relating to the validity of
(2020) 3 SCC 794
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
a document, it would not be appropriate to permit criminal
investigation into the validity of the said document. In the present
case, the genuineness of the Will deed dated 10.08.1994, which is
the basis for filing the present complaint, was already declared as
genuine by the trial Court in O.S.No.22 of 2014.
27. In "Sardool Sing and Another Vs. Nasib Kaur9" the Apex
Court had taken a similar view in the following manner.
"A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the
contention of the respondent is that no Will was executed
whereas the contention of the appellant is that Will has been
executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also
pending in the Court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The civil
Court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of
the Will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in
civil Courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be
permitted to institute as criminal prosecution on the allegation that
the Will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by
the civil Court after recording the evidence and hearing the
parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit
the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation
when the validity of the Will is being tested before a civil Court.
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh in the case
entitled Smt. Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in
the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the
civil court comes to the conclusion that the Will is a forged one.
We of course refrain from expressing any opinion as regards
genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question as there is no
1987 (supplementary) SCC 146
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
occasion to do so and the question is wife open before the lower
Courts."
28. In the present case also, father of the defacto complainant
raised a plea that the Will dated 10.08.1994 is a forged and
fabricated document in O.S.No.22 of 2014, however the said suit
was dismissed by recording a finding that the said Will was proved
as genuine by petitioner No.1 herein. The specific finding recorded
by the trial Court is as follows:
"On the other hand, third defendant clearly
established that Ex.B.7 Will was executed by said Putti
Thirupathaiah in favour of first defendant and first
defendant executed registered gift deed in favour of the
third defendant with regard to the plaint schedule
property."
29. Defendant No.3 in the said suit is petitioner No.1 herein.
However, the said suit was filed for partition of property, and in the
said suit the genuineness of the Will dated 10.08.1994 was decided
by the trial Court. Against the said decree and judgment passed in
O.S.No.22 of 2014, respondent No.2 herein preferred an appeal
vide A.S.No.19 of 2018 and as the same is pending on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Guntur, respondent No.2 is at liberty to
raise his contentions with regard to the genuineness of the Will
dated 10.08.1994. As discussed supra, respondent No.2 is not
entitled to prosecute civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously.
Therefore, the criminal petition deserves to be allowed.
30. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings
against the petitioners herein in FIR No.167 of 2019 on the file of
VS,J
Crl.P._5344_2020
Thulluru Police Station, are hereby quashed, leaving it open to the
de facto complainant to initiate criminal action in the event of the
civil Court coming to the conclusion in A.S.No.19 of 2018 that the
Will dated 10.08.1994 is a forged document.
31. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand
closed.
________________________
JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
05.08.2024
Ksp
