Chandrakanth Jaju vs The State Of A.P.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4132 Tel

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      CRL.P.No.8630 OF 2013
ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C

to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in

Cr.No.201 of 2013 of I-Town Police Station, Kothagudem,

Khammam District, registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and

Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-A-1 & A-2 and

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the first respondent-State.

None appears for the second respondent-complainant. Perused the

material on record.

3. The second respondent filed a private complaint before

the learned I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothagudem, against A-1 to A-10 for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 read with Section 34 IPC

and Section 3 of the Act and the same was forwarded by

the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C

for investigation and report. Thereafter, the Police, Kothagudem

I-Town registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2012 against A-1 to

A-10 for the offences stated above.

4. The second respondent, who belongs to Lambada

community, alleged in her complaint that her father purchased

house property bearing No.6-1-742, 6-4-154, 6-4-470 (old),

corresponding to new No.6-4-156 being an extent of 180 sq. yards

situated at Netaji Market, Lambadi Bazar, Kothagudem Town &

Mandal. The above said property, which is worth Rs.20 lakhs,

stands in her name and recorded as the absolute owner

and possessor. She further alleged that A-2 had created false

documents and used them as genuine in order to cheat her and

grab the said property; that A-2 and A-1 obtained conveyance

patta vide document bearing No.1790/2011 dated 16.08.2011 and

patta bearing No.1869/2011 dated 18.08.2011 in respect of the

said property; that A-3 to A-10 with a dishonest and fraudulent

intention criminally conspired with A-1 and A-2 to grab her

property and got entered their name in the records by deleting her

name and fraudulently obtained pattas; that A-7 fraudulently

misled the complainant and deliberately concealed the files

by tampering the evidence. Thus, A-1 to A-10 with a dishonest

intention have resorted to criminal conspiracy to grab the valuable

property of the complainant worth Rs.20 lakhs.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the house

bearing No.6-1-489 stands in the name of Smt.Kamala Bai as

owner in municipal records from 1972-73 to 1991-92 and in the

year 1991-92, door No.6-1-489 was changed to 6-4-156 and

name of said Kamala Bai continued as owner till 17.08.2004 and

later from 18.08.2004, the name of Smt.Vimala Bail was entered

and she continued as owner in respect of H.No.6-4-156 as legal

heir. He further submits that H.No.6-1-490 stands in the name of

Sri Tulasi Ram Jaju as owner in the municipal records from

1972-73 to 1991-92 and in the year 1991-92, Door No.6-1-490

was changed to 6-4-154, 6-4-155 and he continued till 21.12.2001

as owner. Learned counsel further submits that the name of first

petitioner was mutated in the records by deleting the name of

Sri Tulasi Ram Jaju in respect of above said house numbers, as

legal heir.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that

there is no house with H.No.6-4-470 at all in the municipal records

and H.No.6-4-156 does not tally with old H.Nos.6-1-742, 6-4-154

or 6-4-470 and false door numbers were given by the complainant

without verifying the municipal records. He further submits that

the allegations in the complaint do not prima facie constitute any of

the offences alleged and that a false complaint is filed by the

second respondent and without there being any allegations

disclosing commission of the offences, the present case was

registered. He prays for quashing the proceedings against the

petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, while opposing the

submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, submits the

allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of

cognizable offences and that the investigating agency may be

permitted to complete the investigation. She prays to dismiss the

petition.

8. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint discloses that

the complainant owns a house property worth Rs.20 lakhs which

was purchased by her father. A-1 and A-2 have been taking care of

the property of the complainant by paying the property tax and they

developed greedy intention to grab her property knowing that the

complainant is illiterate. On coming to know of their intention, she

filed a complaint before A-9 and A-10 not to issue regularization

conveyance patta in respect of her property. The complainant,

after knowing the fraud, criminal conspiracy of A-1 to A-10, on

30.10.2012, approached A-7-Municipal Commissioner, who, in

turn informed her that A-1 and A-2 do not have any title over

the house property and A-3 had collected the property tax of her

house in the name of A-1 and A-2. A-5, who is the ward

councilor, colluded with all the accused and resorted to dishonest

and fraudulent cheating in respect of the property belonging to the

complainant. Thus, the complainant alleged that A-1 to A-10 had

resorted to criminal conspiracy to grab her valuable house property

worth Rs.10 lakhs with dishonest and fraudulent intention and

without any basis, the names of A-1 and A-2 were entered in the

municipal records.

9. The question which is to be considered is whether the

allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the offences

alleged.

10. In STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL1,

the Hon'ble Apex Court laid the following guidelines while

exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and gave the

following categories of cases by way of illustrations wherein such

power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the

court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, as under:

(a) 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;

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the

1 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(d) 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;

      (e)         where      the    allegations          made     in    the     FIR     or
                  complaint        are       so         absurd      and       inherently
                  improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

      (f)         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;

      (g)         where      a     criminal         proceeding         is     manifestly
                  attended         with       mala         fide     and/or         where

the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulteriormotive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".

11. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held at

paragraph 103 as under:

"We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice".

12. In the case on hand, the allegations in the complaint do not

clearly constitute any of the offences alleged justifying registration

of case and investigation thereon because of the allegations of

the second respondent that her name was deleted from municipal

records at the instance of A-1 and A-2 and regularization

conveyance patta was granted in their favour and in the said

process A-3 to A-10 conspired and colluded with A-1 and A-2 and

with dishonest intention caused loss to the complainant by

grabbing away her property, which is worth Rs.20 lakhs. Even if

the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any

offences or make out a case against the accused for the reason the

second respondent has to invoke the civil court to establish her title

to the property by seeking recovery of the same. When the record

filed by the petitioners categorically show the name of A-2 in

respect of the house property which is much prior to the alleged

proceedings, the allegation that they have colluded with the

municipal authorities and got the house property entered in their

name prima facie do not constitute any of the ingredients of the

offences alleged. Merely because the second respondent belongs

to scheduled tribe community and without there being any

allegations, invoking the offence under the SC/ST Act is nothing

but abuse of process of law.

13. For the foregoing reasons and after considering the

allegations in the complaint in detail, it appears that the second

respondent instead of approaching the civil court by giving

coloured version of the events and making the allegations to give

the cloak of criminal case with an ulterior motive filed the present

complaint and such proceedings ought not to be permitted to

harassment and persecution of the parties. It also appears that the

learned Magistrate has not given a serious look into the allegations

before referring the complaint for investigation. Had he given

attention to the allegations in the complaint, things would have

been different and he should not have made the parties to approach

this court for seeking such action. Further, the present case

squarely falls within the parameters of the decision of the Apex

Court in BHAJAN LAL's case (supra).

14. Under these circumstances, the continuance of criminal

proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 would certainly

amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered

a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the

petitioners/A-1 and A-2.

15. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The

proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in Cr.No.201 of

2013 of I-Town Police Station, Kothagudem, Khammam District,

are hereby quashed.

16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

16.08.2022 Lrkm