Telangana High Court

P.V.S. Sarma vs The State Of Telangana on 22 September, 2021

Bench: G Sri Devi

               HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 159, 359, 8372 and 8378 of 2019

COMMON ORDER:

      All these Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1070 of 2017 on

the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

      The facts, in issue, are as under:

      The 3rd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report on

25.05.2017 stating that M/s. Trinity Infrastructures Limited,

represented by its authorized signatory P.S.Parthasarathi (petitioner

in Criminal Petition No.359 of 2019), had executed four documents in

favour of M/s. Suvishal Power Generation Ltd., represented by its

authorized signatory P.V.S.Sharma (petitioner in Criminal Petition

No.8372 of 2019) by transferring the Government Lands in Sy.Nos.20,

28, 100, 101 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District, registered at S.R.O., Kukatpally, as detailed below:-

Sl. Document No.                Sy.No.     Extent                 Remarks
No.
1.  Doct.No.472/IV/2016         101        231 Acres
2.   Doct.No.474/IV/2016        20         109 Acres 18 guntas
3.   Doct.No.475/IV/2016        28         145 Acres 26 guntas
4.   Doct.No.476/IV/2016        100        207 Acres

It is also stated in the complaint that the above documents were

registered at S.R.O., Kukatpally, by violating the provisions of Section

22-A of the Registration act, 1908 by making a false statement before

the Registering Officer of S.R.O., Kukatpally that the said land are

transferable patta lands only, thereby cheated the Government. As

per Section 82 of the Registration Act, the parties mentioned in the

above documents are liable for punishment and requested to

prosecute them. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime

No.366 of 2017 of Kukatpally Police Station, was registered against

the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under

Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120 (B) of I.P.C. and Section 82 of the

Registration Act. After completing the investigation, the Police filed

charge sheet before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 166,

409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B), 109 of I.P.C. and Section 82 of the

Registration Act, which was numbered as C.C.No.1070 of 2017.

The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.159 of 2019 are A-9 and

A-8; the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.359 of 2019 is A-2, the

petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8372 of 2019 is A-3 and the

petitioners in Criminal Petition No.8378 of 2019 are A-10, A-11 and

A-24, in the above C.C., and they filed these Criminal Petitions to

quash the proceedings against them in the above C.C.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Government

Pleader for Home appearing for the 3rd respondent and perused the

record.

By filing written arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners

would submit that one Khaisaruddin Khan was the original owner of

the lands situated in Miyapur Village, having succeeded to the lands

through his great grandfather to his grandmother and from

grandmother to his mother and from his mother to him. The

documents relating to inheritance of the property through Sanad and

the Firmans issued by the Nizam recognizing the ownership over the

property and the order of the Board of Revenue are filed to show that

Khaisaruddin Khan was the original owner of the property. The

relevant extracts in the said documents are as follows:-

The Sanad dt. 16.10.1880, the relevant portion is as under:-

"the villages Miyapur belonging to Padshahzadi Saheba are released and given to Quadriunnisa Begum, permanently, perpetually and forever to be devolved upon the children born and to be continued general after generation from the year 1289 Fasli".

The Firman dt. 17.01.1929, the relevant true extract is as under:-

"The heirs of the daughters of Rashiduddin Khan, Shamsul Umra IV (i.e. the sisters of Kursheed Jahi) are at present Bahadur Dil Jung, Qutbunnisa Begum and Rafiunnissa Begum. They will not be given any share from the Paigah income, but the Jagirs given awar to the said sisters by their father and grandfather, should be given to the present heirs with Wasllator Mesne profits".

The Firman dt.12.09.1934 , true extract is as under:-

"The creation of complications in a settled matter is not proper. Therefore, I do agree with the opinion of Prime Minister Aqueel ung and Waliad - Damuna that the vive villages Kesrojlg - Wagulgaon - Bahadurpally - Mianpur and Maktha

Malgnttiguda along with proceeds be given to Rafiunnisa Begum".

The Firman dt. 07.07.1949 true extract is as under:-

"As per the opinion of the Board of Trust, the succession of the four villages of Paigah, belonging to late Rafiunnissa Begum, i.e. Jaiser Jolga, Vakulgaon, Miyanpur and Bhadurpally be granted in the name of her son, Khaisaruddin Khan. Whatever position enjoyed by late Rafiunnissa Begum over those villages, the same shall be enjoyed by Khaisaruddin Khan".

It is also submitted that the deposition of Khaisaruddin Khan,

dated 22nd Dai 1356 Fasli given in the Atiyath Enquiry Proceedings is

also confirms the above Firmans and that the lands are given under

the Shariat Law. The Board of Revenue, vide its order, dated

29.12.1976, held as under:-

" The record shows that the Nazim Atiyat had not confirmed the two villages on the ground that the Paigah had not included them in its claim. The Firman has been perused and it is seen there from that in Order III. Para 5 the villages given to the appellant's predecessors in title are expressly confirmed. The Paigah had also sanctioned succession in respect of these villages. In these circumstances the Order passed by the Nazim Atiyat is set aside and the appeal is allowed".

In view of the above orders, the village Miyapur was declared

as private property of Khaisaruddin and the same has become final,

as there is no appeal against the said Order by the State at any point

of time.

It is also submitted that as per the above Sanad given in the

year 1880 by Nawab Mohammed Rasheeduddin Khan in favour of

his daughter Hazrath Quadriunnissa Begum granting Miyapur lands

permanently, perpetually and forever to be devolved upon children

born to be continued generation after generation, clearly established

that the maternal grandmother of Nawab Khaisaruddin Khan and

mother of Khaisaruddin Khan Rafiunnissa Begum and the Firmans

issued by the Nizam in the year 1929, 1939 and 1949 confirming that

Rafiunnissa Begum and Khaisaruddin Khan are the owners of the

lands in Miyapur and also clearly established that the lands are not

Jagir lands. It is further submitted that basing on the public caution

notice published in Deccan Chronicle News Paper by the legal

representatives of Khaisaruddin Khan stating that they are the

owners of the property by virtue of the orders of the Board of

Revenue, dated 29.12.1976, Land Grabbing Case Nos.21 and 22 of

1994 were filed by Ravindra Cooperative Housing Society Limited

before the Land Grabbing Court. There was no notice to respondents

1 to 7 therein and due to fraud played by the alleged G.P.A. holder,

an ex parte order was passed, but the said order was set aside by the

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.6240 of 1995 along with batch

of cases in W.P.No.889 of 1995 and batch on 16.04.2003, because the

Government was not a party, which is interested party as per Section

8 of the Land Grabbing Act.

It is also submitted that the subject lands are hereditary as per

Shariat Law basing on the documents filed by the State in the Land

Grabbing Cases. It is not sub-grant from Paigah to Khaisaruddin

Khan as claimed by the State under Jagir Abolition Regulations, 1948.

On the other hand, there was clear judgment rendered in O.S.A.No.58

of 2002 and batch, dated 10.06.2003, after the judgment in W.P.No.889

of 1995 and batch, Division Bench of this Court, has dealt with

Miyapur village and the relevant paragraph of which is extracted

hereunder:-

"The law relating to Grown Grants obtaining in the former Nizams' Dominions is well settled by the several decisions of the former Hyderabad High Court as well as the subsequent decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. The sum and substance of the law declared is that every grant made by the Ruler was only for the lifetime of the grantee. On the death of the grantee, the grant reverted to the Crown and it was in the sole discretion of the Crown either to re-grant it, or not. It was open to the Crown to re-grant it to the heirs and successors of the previous grantee, or to one or more of them, or to total stranger. The grants were of several kinds and were known under different expressions, viz., Jagir, Samsthan, Maktha, Inam etc. The fact remains that each one of them was a grant and was governed by the same rule referred to herein above. If the grant was of a whole village, it was generally referred to as Jagir or Samsthan; but if the grant pertains only to a certain land in a given village, it was called Inam or Maktha as the case may be.

In the instant case there is nothing on record suggesting that the Crown in its discretion had re-granted the lands in Miyapur village to the heirs and successors of previous grantee. Mere assertion that the entire village was the personal property of the predecessors in title of the decree holders would not be enough."

It is further submitted that in the above said judgment, this

Court held that the lands in Miyapur village are not Jagir lands by

virtue of non-grant by the Ruler to the Paigah. It also held that the

lands in Miyapur are not the Paigah lands. This Court very clearly

held that for attracting the lands as Jagir land, there must be grant or

re-grant or sub-grant and there is clear finding that there is no grant

or re-grant with regard to the lands in Miyapur by the Ruler. Hence,

the lands are not Jagir lands and personal properties of Nawab

Khaisaruddin Khan, which were inherited by his legal

representatives. It is further submitted that the allegations made

against the accused in the charge sheet are purely arising out of civil

disputes, which have been going on between various parties

including the petitioners and State since 1976 and the same is

pending for final hearing before the Apex Court in C.A.Nos.10699 of

2013 and batch. After execution of the G.P.A., the G.P.A. holder had

filed SLP (C) No.6510 of 2016 before the Apex Court.

It is also submitted that on perusal of the charge sheet show

that none of the offences alleged against the petitioners stands made

out. Instead, it is purely a civil dispute which has been pending for a

considerable period of time between the parties. A perusal of the

complaint and the charge sheet would not disclose any of the

ingredients of the alleged penal provisions being attracted. He is not

complaining of any cheating. It is settled law that Sections 419 and

420 get attracted when the cheating has taken place at the inception

and not subsequently. In fact, none of the ingredients of the offence

cheating are applicable to the allegations contained in the complaint

and the charge sheet. The vendors in the sale deeds are the Sanad

holders and they are before the Apex Court against the Government

on the question of title dispute. The Sanad holders have sold their

sanad rights to the purchasers and such a transaction is binding

between them and does not in any manner constitute cheating as

against the Government. The other offences such as Sections 468, 469

and 471 are the offences relating to fabrication of documents. It is not

the case of the prosecution that any document is fabricated and the

only allegation is that six sale deeds were executed by the Sanad

holders in favour of the purchasers. It is a different thing as to

whether these sale deeds would in any manner be helpful to the

purchasers in future because these sale deeds are not binding on the

Government. There is no element of cheating or fabrication of

documents involved in the present case. Thus, none of the I.P.C.

offences are attracted to make the complaint and charge sheet survive

a trial of the case. Section 82 of the Registration Act is about false

statement, delivering false copies or translations, false personation of

either a vendor or a purchaser. In support of the above contentions,

learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of the

Apex Court in Ahmed Ali Quraishi v. State of U.P.1; Chandran

Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy and others2and Indian Oil

Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and another3 and also judgment

of this Court in Faisal Bin Tirial and another v. State of Telangana

rep. by it's Public Prosecutor4.

It is further submitted that there is nothing on record with

regard to any mens rea or any act on the part of the petitioners which

would amount to the offence alleged to have been committed.

Salutary principle of law that any act even if erroneous or illegal,

would not amount to a actionable criminal wrong unless requisite

mens rea is established conclusively, squarely applies to the facts of

the present case and the impugned C.C. deserves to be quashed on

this ground alone. In C.K.Jaggar Sharrief v. State5, the Apex Court

held that mere wrong would not render a wrong doer liable for

criminal prosecution. In Rajiv Thappar v. Madan Lal Kappor6 the

Apex Court held that the Courts have power to look into the

document produced before it and take a view on the question of

continuance of criminal prosecution. In the present case the grant of

'Sanad' rights from the ancestors of late Nawab, the undisputed

genealogy table and the rights flowing from the 'sanad', the

(2020) 13 SCC 435

(2013) 6 SCC 740

(2006) 6 SCC 736

(2019) 3 ALT (Crl.) 189 (T.S.)

(2013) 1 SCC 205

(2013) 3 SCC 330

registered General Power of Attorney Deed and the order of the

Board of Revenue and the pendency of civil litigation, clearly

establish that there is no criminal offence made out as to the title of

the said property belonged to the petitioners. The criminal

prosecution cannot be used to browbeat the present petitioners from

enjoyment of land which lawfully belonged to it and neither can it be

used to scuttle the legal remedies availed by the petitioners to protect

its interest. The present criminal prosecution is an abuse of the

process of law and has been commenced with a view to prevent the

petitioners from lawfully proceeding in the civil Court by exerting

duress and pressure. It is further submitted that a person cannot be

charged for the offence of cheating as well as criminal breach of trust

simultaneously for the same transaction as ingredients of both

offences are mutually exclusive. 'Dishonest intention' at the

'inception' of transaction is a prerequisite of the offence of cheating.

For criminal breach of trust, there must exist a relationship between

the parties whereby one party 'entrusts' the other party with property

and hence, the 'dishonest intention' arises 'subsequently'. It is also

submitted that the complaint dated 25.05.2017 by the District

Registrar to the police is that the Sub-Registrar in conspiracy with the

petitioners and that the petitioners have allowed the registration of

documents which amount to sale of the Government land. It is

settled law that no one can convey better title than what he has. If the

petitioners have sold/purchased an inchoate/defective or non-

existing Sanad rights of its vendors it cannot be said that a crime has

been committed by the petitioners or its Directors or vendors or the

other purchasers. On one hand, the allegation is that the accused sold

the Government land and on the other hand the allegation is that

requisite stamp duty and registration fees have not been paid and the

documents are under valued. It is further submitted that these two

self contradictory allegations in the complaint would demonstrate

that the registration of crime itself is mala fide and it is aimed at

disabling the petitioners and its purchasers from pursuing their legal

remedies in the Apex Court. Suffice it to say that without there being

committing of any offences the crime has been registered under

Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of I.P.C. As per the law laid

down by the Apex Court in State of West Bengal and others v.

Swapan Kumar Guha and others7 an investigation without there

being a commission of offence, is liable to be quashed. It is further

submitted that it is on record of the Sub-Registrar's Office that during

years 2014-2017, as many as 1509 sale deed transactions were

registered by the Sub-Registrar concerning the lands in Miyapur

Village. This fact has come into light from the counter affidavit filed

by the State in PIL Case No.184 of 2017. Thus, the allegations in the

charge sheet are inherently improbable and the charge sheet is liable

to be quashed as the impugned prosecution will result in substantial

and irretrievable injustice to the petitioners.

(1982) 1 SCC 561

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there

are specific overt-acts against the petitioners and the contents of the

charge sheet prima facie establish the offences alleged against them

and, therefore, prayed for dismissal all the Criminal Petitions.

A perusal of the material available on record would show that

case in Crime No.366 of 2017 of Kukatpally Police Station, was

registered on 25.05.2017 against the petitioners and others for the

offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C.

and Section 82 of the Registration Act. The allegations in the First

Information Report in Crime No.366 of 2017 would show that A-4

therein executed four documents in favour of Suvishal Power

Generation Limited by transferring the land belongs to the

Government in Sy.Nos.20, 28, 100 and 101 of Miyapur Village,

registered by the Sub-Registrar Office, Kukatpally, vide documents

viz. (1) No.472/IV/2016 for Sy.No.101 of Ac.231.00 gts., (2)

474/IV/2016 for Sy.No.20 of Ac.109.18 gts., (3) 475/IV/2016 for

Sy.No.28, of Ac.145.26 gts., and (4) 476/IV/2016 for Sy.No.100 of

Ac.207.00 gts., by violating the provisions of the Registration Act and

thereby cheated the Government. After conducting investigation,

charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 166, 409, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 (B),

109 of I.P.C. and Section 82 of the Registration Act,, which was

numbered as C.C.No.1070 of 2017 on the file of the IX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

In Devendra v. State of U.P.8, the Apex Court held as under:

"A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."

In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others9 Hon'ble

the Apex Court has held as under:

"Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.

In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.

(2009) 7 SCC 495

(2011) 7 SCC 59

The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant by the Complainant- Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law.

In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and

another10 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:

"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it

(2009) 8 SCC 751

are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."

In the instant case also, the record discloses that the question of

title of the subject land i.e. "whether the land in Miyapur Village is

private land or Government land is still pending before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in C.A. Nos.10699 of 2013 and batch", which

is an admitted fact by both the parties concerned. Further, the

contents of the F.I.R. itself disclose that the Tahsildar,

Serilingampally, has filed a Land Grabbing Case against the land

grabbers in the Special Court of the Land Grabbing. In turn, the

Special Court ordered to evict the encroachers from the said land.

Aggrieved by the said eviction order, the land grabbers have filed

W.P.No.1889 of 1998 before the High Court. After disposal of the

Writ Petition, the land grabbers have approached the Supreme Court