Syed Mukhtar Ahmed vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3960 Tel

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                   CRL.P.No.14312 OF 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to

quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in crime

No.946 of 2013 of Banjara Hills Police Station registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 384, 468, 471 read

with Section 34 IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. Though notice served on the

second respondent, none represented. Perused the material on

record.

3. The second respondent lodged a complaint on 07.11.2013

alleging that he is the secretary of Paramount Co-operative

Housing Society. The said society has acquired lands admeasuring

Ac.45-00 guntas out of 66 acres in survey Nos.93, 94, 104, 107 and

108 and 109 of Hakeempet Village, Shaikhpet Mandal (erstwhile

Golconda Mandal), Hyderabad by virtue of an assignment deed

dated 28.08.1995 from its owners namely;- Shri Hashim Ali Khan 2 ASR,J Crlp_14312_2013

and eight others. The assignment deed was subsequently

recognized by I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in

O.S.No.42 of 1962 and thus became final. Thereafter, the land was

surveyed and fixing the boundaries, the land was handed over to

the respondent-society. Subsequently, one Padmini Co-operative

Society claimed the said lands and the subject matter landed in City

Civil Court, High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and title

of the subject property was decided in favour of respondent-

society. The members of respondent-society have developed their

respective plots and constructed buildings over the same.

4. It is alleged that the petitioner is claiming to have purchased

some lands in adjoining survey No.103 of Hakeempet Village, tried

to interfere in the respondent-society's lands in survey No.104 and

the respondent-Society obtained injunction order restrained the

petitioner from interfering in survey No.104. The petitioner filed

WP.No.3094 of 2009 before this Court and this Court directed him

to get the land surveyed and demarcated, so as to ascertain the

identity of the said lands. It is stated that without doing so, the

petitioner has changed his stand and fabricated some agreements 3 ASR,J Crlp_14312_2013

bearing forged signatures of Hashim Ali Khan in survey No.104.

It is further stated that the petitioner produced some documents and

it is stated that the land situated in sy.No.104 of Hakeempet

village, Shaikhpet Mandal, but the said agreements were executed

in the year 1981 and 1983. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.1048, dated

27.09.1996 Shaikpet Mandal was formed and prior to that all the

said lands were situated in Golconda Mandal. The documents of

the petitioners contain the name of Shaikpet Mandal in 1981 and

1983, when Shaikpet Mandal has not existed by that time. Thus,

the sale agreements produced by the petitioner are fabricated and

were prepared only recently with an intention to illegally grab the

lands.

5. It is stated that the petitioner and his three sons are grabbing,

blackmailing and illegally committed extortion by creating forged

documents and trying to occupy the respondent-society's land.

6. The said complaint was registered by the Station House

Officer in crime No.946 of 2013 for the aforesaid offences.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

                                     4                             ASR,J
                                                        Crlp_14312_2013

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the suit

filed by the second respondent-society in O.S.No.699 of 2007 for

perpetual Injunction in respect of schedule property i.e. Ac.4-00

guntas in survey No.104 of Hakeempet Village of Shaikpet

Mandal, against the petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel

further submits the allegations of the complaint are vague and they

do not prima facie, constitute any of the alleged offences. Learned

counsel further submits that the second respondent-society lost

civil suit and subsequently filed false complaint to convert civil

dispute into criminal case. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition

and quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the

allegations, prima facie, show the ingredients of the offences

alleged and petition may be dismissed and the Investigating Officer

may be permitted to proceed with the case.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of

Sri Revensasiddesehwara Traders, Karnataka v. State of A.P.1

and Inder Mohan Goswami v.State of Uttaranchal2.

1   2006(2) ALD (crl.) 102 (AP)
                                   5                            ASR,J
                                                     Crlp_14312_2013

10. A perusal of the complaint would discloses that the second

respondent-society acquired lands admeasuring Ac.45-00 guntas

out of 66 acres in survey Nos.93, 94, 104, 107 and 108 and 109 of

Hakeempet Village, Shaikhpet Mandal (erstwhile Golconda

Mandal), Hyderabad by virtue of an assignment deed dated

28.08.1995 from its owners namely;- Shri Hashim Ali Khan and

eight others. The land was surveyed and said lands were handed

over to the respondent-society under the cover of panchanama. It

is alleged that the petitioner is claiming to have purchased some

lands in adjoining survey No.103 of Hakeempet Village, tried to

interfere with respondent-society lands in survey No.104.

Subsequently, the petitioner alleged to have produced some

agreements that his lands are situated in survey No.10 of Hakimpet

Village, Shaikpet Mandal and the said sale agreements produced

by the petitioner are fabricated which were created with an

intention to illegally occupy the said lands. It is specifically

alleged that the said agreements were executed in the year 1981

and 1983. Shaikpet Mandal was formed on 27.09.1996 and prior

to that all the said lands were situated in Golconda Mandal. Basing

2 AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251 6 ASR,J Crlp_14312_2013

on this ground, he alleged that the documents are false and

fabricated with a intention to occupy the respondent-society's land.

11. Undisputedly, the second respondent-society filed

O.S.No.699 of 2007 on the file of IV Senior Civil Judge's Court,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad for perpetual Injunction in respect of

Ac.4-00 guntas of land situated in survey No.104, Hakeempet

Village, Golconda Mandal against the petitioner. Said suit was

dismissed on 19.02.2013 holding that the respondent-society failed

to produce satisfactory material to show that the petitioner herein

tried to interfere with the possession in respect of suit schedule

property.

12. On the other hand, the petitioner herein has proved his

premises Nos.9-4-47/22/A/8, 9-4-44/A and 9-4-4/B/14 falling in

T.S.Nos.1/1, ½ and 12/2, Block-B and D, Ward No.12 is

correlating to Sy.Nos.103 and 104 part of Shaikpet Village,

Hyderabad. Since civil suit filed against the petitioner was

dismissed, it appears that the second respondent filed this

complaint on 07.11.2013 alleging that the petitioner tried to

commit tress pass and tried to occupy the society's land by creating 7 ASR,J Crlp_14312_2013

forged documents. But in view of orders in civil suit, the question

of offence of criminal trespass fails and apparently, there is no

specific date on which the petitioner tried to interfere with the

possession of lands in survey No.104. Coming to the other

allegations of forgery and fabrication of sale agreements to the

lands in survey No.104 of Hakeempet Village, Shaik pet Mandal,

the agreements said to have been executed in the year 1981 and

1983 and by that time, Shaikpet Mandal was not in existence and it

was formed on 27.09.1996. But the said allegations are very vague

in nature and there are no specific allegations as to the extent of

land, date of agreements and details of survey numbers mentioned

in the complaint. As such, they do not prima facie constitute any of

the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC.

So far as offence under Section 384 IPC is concerned, absolutely,

there is no allegation to constitute any of the ingredients of the said

offence and it is not known why the Station House Officer added it.

13. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that in view of

dismissal of suit against the petitioner herein, the second

respondent-society for obvious reasons to convert purely civil 8 ASR,J Crlp_14312_2013

dispute into criminal case has filed the present complaint with the

allegations that are baseless and without any foundation.

Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would

be abuse of process of law. As such, it is considered as fit case to

invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the

proceedings.

14. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed. The

proceedings in crime No.946 of 2013 of Banjara Hills Police

Station, against the petitioner/accused are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J

28.07.2022

Nvl