Telangana High Court

Smt. M. Kalavathi vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2022

Bench: K.Lakshman

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.4933 OF 2022
ORDER:

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime

No.49 of 2022 of Pet Basheerabad Police Station, Cyberabad

Commissionerate.

2. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.2 in the said

Crime. The offences alleged against her are under Sections - 406,

420, 423, 447, 465 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.

3. Heard Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf

of respondent No.1 - State.

4. Originally, respondent No.2 herein - de facto complainant

filed a complaint under Section - 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the XXII

Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal against the petitioner herein and

other accused, and the learned Magistrate had referred the matter to

the Police, Pet Basheerabad Police Station under Section - 156 (3) of

the Cr.P.C, who in turn, registered the aforesaid crime for the

aforesaid offences.

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

5. The contents of the complaint filed before the Magistrate are

as follows:

i) Respondent No.2 herein is the absolute owner and possessor

of agriculture land in Survey No.344, admeasuring Ac.0.18 guntas by

virtue of a Family Settlement Deed executed among the family

members of Smt. V. Bhoolakshmi and Sri V. Ramaiah.

ii) Originally, the land in Survey No.344 belonged to the

grandfather of respondent No.2 herein.

iii) As Mr. Vadla Venkat Narsu failed to give share to the

grandfather of respondent No.2, his mother filed a suit vide O.S.

No.39 of 1971 for declaration and possession before the Munsif

Magistrate, Medchal. The said suit was decreed in respect of the

properties of Mr. Vadla Venkat Narsu. As against the said decree, the

mother of respondent No.2, Smt. V. Bhoolakshmi filed an appeal vide

A.S. No.187 of 1975 before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Courts, Hyderabad. The said appeal was partly decreed in favour of

the mother of respondent No.2 i.e., the land in Survey No.183

admeasuring Ac.0.23 guntas at Qutubullapur and H.No.2-36, situated

at Qutubullapur Mandal.

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

iv) The mother of respondent No.2 filed an execution petition

vide E.P. No.19 of 1987 for delivery of possession of property

admeasuring Ac.0-18 guntas in Sy.No.344 on 23.04.1977 by virtue of

receipt and also panchanama was conducted while handing over the

said possession in her favour.

v) When the third parties tried to alienate the allotted land in

Sy.No.183, E.P. No.1 of 1987 was filed, and the learned Magistrate

Court was pleased to grant injunction. During the pendency of the

said proceedings, the mother of respondent No.2 herein died on

23.07.1984, and E.A. No.20 of 1987 was filed to bring her legal heirs

on record i.e., respondent No.2 herein and his sisters.

vi) Respondent No.2 herein was an employee in H.M.T. and

was busy in his avocation and, therefore, the said land was kept fallow

without cultivation. After his retirement, he was attacked with

paralysis and he could not move from bed for nearly three (03) years.

He suffered 47% disability.

vii) Recently, when respondent No.2 herein visited the property

in Sy.No.344, situated at Qutubullapur, he was astonished to see that

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

some constructions are going on and that there is a board showing the

name of accused No.2.

viii) Immediately, he enquired and came to know that there was

fraud and forgery was played and got created documents i.e., accused

No.2 had purchased the land from Smt. Kalavathi, who purchased the

property from the mother of respondent No.2 herein vide document

No.5938 of 1996, dated 23.09.1996. In fact, the mother of respondent

No.2 died on 23.11.1984 itself.

ix) The aforesaid documents were forged and created in

connivance with one Mr. T. Ravinder Rao/A.4, whose land is situated

adjacent to the land of respondent No.2. After the death of mother of

respondent No.2, in order to usurp the property, got created the

document as of the mother of respondent No.2 sold the land in favour

of accused No.2 and after five years, accused No.1 in turn sold the

said land to accused No.2. Accused No.2 is none other than the wife

of accused No.4, Mr. T. Ravinder Rao.

x) Accused No.2 in turn executed sale deed in favour of

accused No.3, who is represented by Mr. Somnath Rao Kapatkar. All

the said sale deeds were done in collusion among themselves and had

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

brought them into existence. The said accused executed development

agreement with accused No.6, who had knowledge about the forgery.

xi) All the accused including the petitioner herein have

knowledge about the execution of documents and, therefore, they are

liable for prosecution for the aforesaid offences.

6. Mr. Putta Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

- accused No.1, would submit that the petitioner herein is innocent of

the offences alleged and that she is no way concerned with the alleged

offences. She was falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime for no

fault on her part.

i) Learned counsel would further submit that the complaint was

lodged by respondent No.2 herein after elapse of 25 years. Further,

many sale transactions had taken place during the interregnum period.

Only to harass and blackmail the petitioner, the aforesaid complaint

was lodged by respondent No.2 after elapse of 25 years which is

nothing but an after thought. Further, the allegations made in the

complaint are civil in nature and do not attract the ingredients for the

offences under IPC.

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

ii) With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner herein.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

would contend that there are specific allegations against the petitioner

herein and the same are to be investigated into by the Investigating

Officer during the investigation. According to him, the learned

Magistrate having gone through the contents of the complaint filed

under Section - 200 of the Cr.P.C. and having found that prima facie

there are allegations to be investigated into, referred the complaint to

the police under Section - 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation. He

would further submit that all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the

petition cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section - 482 of

the Cr.P.C. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the

present petition.

8. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.2

herein contends that he is the owner of land measuring Ac.0.18 guntas

in Survey No.344, situated at Qutubullapur Mandal, having acquired

the same by virtue of succession. It is also alleged that the very same

land was purchased by accused No.2 from accused No.1 vide a

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

registered sale deed bearing document No.17694 of 2006, dated

14.08.2006. It is also alleged that accused No.1 had purchased the

same from the mother of respondent No.2 vide a registered document

No.5938 of 1996, dated 23.09.1996. It is relevant to note that the

mother of respondent No.2 had expired much before the alleged

execution of sale deed i.e., 23.11.1984. Therefore, according to

respondent No.2, the said sale deed is forged one. Accused No.2 in

turn sold the said property apart from other properties along with one

Mr. Tirumala Vishnushayana Charyulu to accused No.3 vide

registered document No.17694 of 2006, dated 14.08.2006. It is also

alleged that the husband of accused No.2 i.e., accused No.4 was

behind back in getting all the said documents forged and fabricated

with an intention to usurp the land of respondent No.2 herein as he is

the adjacent land owner. Taking advantage of health condition of

respondent No.2 that he got paralyzed, accused No.4 did all the said

forgery and fabrication of the documents in collusion with other

accused. Further, all the accused had the knowledge about the forgery

and fabrication of documents and, therefore, all of them are liable to

be prosecuted in accordance with law. The delay caused in lodging

the complaint is that respondent No.2 got paralyzed. Whereas, it is

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

the contention of the petitioner that there the allegations are civil in

nature and that there was delay of 25 years in lodging the complaint

and, therefore, no offence is made out against the petitioner herein.

9. First of all, the aspects of forgery and fabrication are to be

investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation. That apart, it is also alleged that the mother of

respondent No.2 never executed any sale deed in favour of the

petitioner herein, much less the sale deed No.5938 of 1996, dated

23.09.1996 as his mother died on 23.11.1984. This aspect needs to be

examined thoroughly by the investigating Officer during the course of

investigation by securing relevant documents and so also as to

whether respondent No.2 got paralyzed or not. The allegation as to

whether the other accused had knowledge about the alleged forgery

and fabrication and that accused No.4 had played a vital role in getting

the said documents forged etc. are also needs to be investigated into

by the Investigating Officer. Thus, prima facie, there are serious

allegations of forgery and fabrication against the petitioner and other

accused. Therefore, all the said aspects have to be investigated into by

the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and the

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

same cannot be considered by this Court in a petition filed under

Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C.

10. In a matter like this, scuttling investigation at the threshold

is not warranted as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.

Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of

Maharashtra1, a Three-judge Bench of the Apex Court laid certain

conclusions, for the purpose of exercising powers by High Courts

under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C and also Article - 226 of the

Constitution of India, which are as under:

"....

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

. AIR 2021 SC 1918

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities.

The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

11. In Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. The

State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the earlier

judgments rendered by it has categorically held that the High Courts

in exercise of its inherent powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C has to

. AIR 2021 SC 931

KL, J Crl.P. No.4933 of 2022

quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with

extreme caution.

12. In view of the above discussion and authoritative

pronouncements of law, this Court is not inclined to quash the

proceedings against the petitioner herein at this stage.

13. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.