Telangana High Court
Sw.Hussaini vs The State Of Telangana Another on 12 November, 2021
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7136 of 2015
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused under Section
482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.129 of 2015 on the
file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur, R.R.
District for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 05.02.2004 at
8.35 PM, the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant lodged a report
before the SR Nagar Police, which was subsequently, transferred on
the point of jurisdiction to the Sanathnagar Police Station, stating that
Mohd. Saheb Hussain married her in the year 1989 and sold out all
her properties, gold, factory, machinery, workshop machinery etc.,
and harassed her both physically and mentally and absconded, leaving
her in debts in March, 2000. She lodged a complaint against her
husband in 2001 under Section 498-A and 420 IPC. Later a
compromise was effected before the elders. As per the compromise,
her husband paid Rs.1,00,000/- and returned the original documents of
her 200 sq.yds., of land in Madinaguda, Miyapur, R.R. District, which
she had given to him earlier. When she tried to sell that land, she
came to know that her husband got a GPA registered as if the
complainant executed GPA in favour of one Md. Nizamuddin and two
others by impersonating the complainant vide document No.5675 of
2002. Again the said GPA holder registered the said land in favour of
the complainant on a fictitious name vide document No.8705 of 2003
Dr.GRR,J
at the Sub-Registrar office, Ranga Reddy District on 10.07.2003.
Thus, they committed the offence of impersonation and forgery.
Basing on the same, the SR Nagar police registered as Crime No.96 of
2004 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and on the point of
jurisdiction, transferred to Sanathnagar P.S., which was re-registered
as Crime No.88 of 2004 and after completing the investigation, filed
charge sheet only against her husband. The IX Metropolitan
Magistrate acquitted the case against the accused in CC No.4397 of
2005. The de facto complainant preferred an appeal vide Crl.A.
No.96 of 2008 on the file of V Additional District Judge (FTC),
Ranga Reddy District. The V Additional District Judge while passing
judgment on 10.10.2011 directed the IX Metropolitan Magistrate to
invoke powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against four persons apart
from the accused in CC No.4397 of 2005 and to conduct fresh trial.
Thus, the petitioner - accused was implicated in CC No.129 of 2015
which was transferred to the file of XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate,
Kukatpally, Miyapur.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unaware of
the disputes between the de facto complainant and her husband, the
petitioner trusted the words of the husband of the de facto
complainant and got entered into the agreement of sale and GPA
dated 09.07.2002. Once the petitioner got to understand the malafide
Dr.GRR,J
intention of the husband of the de facto complainant, preferred to
return back the property covered under the GPA and under the advise
of the husband of the de facto complainant executed a sale deed vide
document No.8705 of 2003 dated 10.07.2003 duly registered in the
office of the Joint Sub Registrar and also surrendered the relevant
documents with possession. The petitioner was neither benefited with
the property nor was in possession of the same. The petitioner, in
fact, had suffered huge financial loss. He was having no knowledge
about the impersonation of the de facto complainant and never had
any intention to cheat her. There were no specific acts against the
petitioner. The Station House Officer, Sanathnagar, after thorough
investigation made the husband of the de facto complainant as a sole
accused. The complainant had not made out a case against the
petitioner. By virtue of the present complainant, the petitioner was
put to severe mental agony and prayed to quash the proceedings.
5. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioner restricted his prayer seeking dispensation of the
presence of the petitioner before the trial Court on every date of
adjournment.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the presence of the
petitioner may not be necessary on every date of adjournment.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
personal appearance of the petitioner in CC No.129 of 2015 on the file
of the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is dispensed with,
Dr.GRR,J
except on the dates when his presence is specifically required by the
Court below.
8. With the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed
of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J
November 12, 2021
KTL
