Chigiri Chiguru Ramaiah 5 Others vs The State Of Ap., Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3797 Tel

         THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5669 of 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed by the petitioners - A1 to A6 under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.224 of

2013 of Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District,

registered against them for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406,

420, 423, 465, 471 and 477 IPC.

2. The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, stating that petitioners

No.1 to 5 - A1 to A5 executed fake, forged, sham and fictitious

registered sale deed vide document No.3057 of 2013 dated 29.04.2013

in respect of his land in Sy.No.538/F, admeasuring 0-26 guntas,

styling themselves as real owners and sold the said land in favour of

A6 and cheated him. The illegal sale of the land was not followed by

delivery of possession to the purchaser and it was only a nominal sale

deed executed to deprive the respondent No.2 of his legitimate rights

over the property. Fake and fictitious pattedar pass books and title

deeds were shown as genuine for getting the land registered in the

name of A6. The said private complaint was referred to the police

which was registered as Crime No.224 of 2013 for the above offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-de facto complainant.

Dr.GRR,J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners 1 to 5 were the owners and possessors of the dry land

admeasuring 0-26 guntas in Sy.No.538/F situated at Maqdumpur

Village, Karimnagar District and they were cultivating the land and

raising crop, mango trees also existed in the said land. With regard to

the disputed land, three suits were pending vide O.S No.157 of 2012

on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, was filed by

the father of the petitioner No.1 seeking declaration of title and

perpetual injunction; the second suit vide O.S. No.259 of 2012 on the

file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar was filed by the respondent

No.2 seeking perpetual injunction and the third suit vide O.S. No.222

of 2013 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, was filed by

the petitioner No.6 - A6 seeking for injunction and declaration of the

registered GPA as not binding on him. The matter was purely civil in

nature. The police ought not to have registered the FIR, as civil

matters were pending before the respective Courts. Registering of

FIR itself was an abuse of process of law. If the respondent No.2 had

any grievance with regard to the revenue entries, he had to pursue the

matter before the Revenue Authorities under R.O.R. Act. The

complainant knowing fully-well about the above facts, filed the

present case only to harass the petitioners and prayed to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.224 of 2013 of

Karimnagar Rural Police Station.

Dr.GRR,J

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the

petitioners No.1 to 5 in collusion with the petitioner No.6 created false

entries in Pahani patrikas showing one Chigiri Rajaiah as pattadar and

showed the name of the father of the respondent No.2 in the

possession column. The petitioners - accused colluded together with a

common object to get the name of Chigiri Rajaiah as pattadar in

pahani patrikas and also brought into existence the forged and fake

1-B certificate. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiah1 on the aspect

that pendency of a civil suit in respect of the matter concerned would

not be a bar to resort to criminal proceedings.

6. Perused the record. As per the private complaint filed by the

respondent No.2, the grandfather of the respondent No.2 by name,

Devanapalli Chinna Venkaiah was the owner, pattedar, possessor of

the land in Sy.No.538/F measuring 0-26 guntas, situated at

Maqdumpur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District and after the

death of Chinna Venkaiah, his son Mallaiah had succeeded to the said

property by inheritance. The said Mallaiah also died in the year 1990

and the respondent No.2, being the son of Mallaiah, had come into

possession of the said land. The name of the grandfather of the

respondent No.2 had been figured as pattedar in the revenue records

i.e. Pahani patrikas and other relevant documents since the year 1980

and consequent to the death of Chinna Venkaiah, the name of

Mallaiah was continued in the revenue records. Virasat in the name

(2002) 9 SCC 581 Dr.GRR,J

of Mallaiah had been granted. Thus, Mallaiah continued as pattedar

of the said land till the year 1983. Thereafter, A1 to A5 in collusion

with A6 colluded together and hatched a plan and created false entries

in the Pahani Patrikas showing Chigiri Rajaiah as pattedar and showed

the name of Devanapalli Mallaiah (father of the respondent No.2) in

the possession column. Chigiri Rajaiah had no right, title or interest

of any kind to succeed to such property. He was neither purchaser of

the land, either through registered document or through any simple

sale deed, or any other way. The accused colluded together and

brought into existence the forged and fake 1-B certificate. The name

of the respondent No.2 had not figured in the revenue records and the

name of his late father continued to appear only in the possessor

column of pahani patrikas. Sensing these illegal entries in the revenue

records, the respondent No.2 approached the Revenue Authorities

with petitions to rectify the mistake of entry of the name of Chigiri

Rajaiah as pattedar and there was no response from the revenue

authorities. As such, he filed O.S No.259/2012 for perpetual

injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Status Quo

order was given by the concerned Court vide I.A. No.983/2012, dated

30.08.2012. He made requests to the VRO, Maqdumpur village not to

mutate or transfer the name of the owner in the revenue records and

marked copies of the said petition to the District Collector, Joint

Collector, Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsiladar, Karimnagar

and also to the Revenue Inspector, Karimnagar, but none had

responded to his request. Chigiri Rajaiah died long back and after his Dr.GRR,J

death only, the so called entry was made and subsequent to the same,

the registered document was created and brought into existence. A1

to A5 in collusion with A6 had brought the forged pattedar passbooks

and title deeds in respect of the land in the name of Chigiri Rajaiah,

even though he was dead and no more.

7. The copies of the civil courts records would disclose that

Chigiri Rajaiah filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual

injunction vide O.S No.157 of 2012 on the file of Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Karimnagar against the respondent No.2 and one Saini

Mallaiah. The respondent No.2 filed a suit for perpetual injunction

before the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar vide O.S. No.259 of 2012

against Chigiri Rajaiah and the petitioner No.6. Petitioner No.6 had

filed a suit for injunction and to declare the registered GPA as not

binding on him vide O.S. No.222 of 2013 on the file of Junior Civil

Judge, Karimnagar. All the said suits are filed with regard to the same

schedule of property in Sy.No.538/F to an extent of 0-26 guntas,

situated at Maqdumpur village of Karimnagar Mandal and District.

8. When the civil suits are pending, filing the criminal

complaint stating that false entries were made in the pahani patrikas

and that the accused brought into existence the fake 1-B certificate, is

considered as an attempt made by the respondent No.2 to color a civil

dispute with a criminal nature. The allegations made in the FIR were

predominantly having a civil flavour. The respondent No.2 could

have approached the Revenue Authorities if he considered that the Dr.GRR,J

entries were wrongly made in the revenue records. If the Revenue

authorities had not responded, he could approach the Civil Court,

which he had rightly done in this case. But filing a criminal case is

considered not proper. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Oil

Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.2 cautioned the growing tendency

in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases

and observed that:

"13. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal3, after

considering a series of decisions, the Hon'ble apex Court observed

that:

"46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused."

In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.4 it was observed that

"...it was duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil nature."

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that O.S

No.259 of 2012 was decreed in favour of respondent No.2. But on

perusal of the same, it was an ex parte decree. As the other cases filed

by the petitioner No.6 and Chigiri Rajaiah, father of the petitioner

No.1 - A1, were still pending before the Civil Courts, filing the

criminal complaint against them is considered as to pressurize them in

(2006) 6 SCC 736

(2007) 12 SCC 1

(2000) 2 SCC 636 Dr.GRR,J

the matters which were essentially civil in nature. The Hon'ble Apex

Court in B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee and another5 held that:

"Power of the High Court of quashing of the criminal case can be exercised when a civil suit is also pending between the parties in respect of the same subject matter and continuation of criminal proceedings in such like cases amounts to abuse of process of law."

10. Hence, considering the above judgments, the continuation

of criminal proceedings is considered as an abuse of process of law

and hence, liable to be quashed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

FIR in Crime No.224 of 2013 on the file of Karimnagar Rural Police

Station, Karimnagar District, against the petitioners herein.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J November 26, 2021 KTL

(2007) 13 SCC 107