Telangana High Court
G.V. Gnaneshwar Naidu vs The State Of Telangana on 28 September, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8089 of 2022
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on
anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with
FIR No.444 of 2022 registered for the offences under Sections
406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC on the file of Jubile Hills
Police Station, Hyderabad.
2. Briefly, the allegation against this petitioner/A1 is that
the defacto complainant is the absolute owner and possessor
of two flats in Jubilee Hills area. The said property was
purchased by the company Mark Portfolio Services Private
Limited vide registered document No.1898 of 2013 and 1899
of 2013 by paying sale consideration. It is the case that the
petitioner and others forged the signatures and created false
documents such as sale-cum-GPA and also cash receipts with
an intention to grab the property and the persons are trying to
dispossess based on the said forged documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
defacto complainant executed an agreement of sale-cum-GPA
on 07.04.2014 and amounts were paid to the defacto
complainant and he had delivered vacant possession of the
flat. Though the defacto complainant received major amounts,
he was not registering the property, for which reason, legal
notice dated 04.06.2020 was issued to register the property.
However, there was no reply, for which reason, civil suit OS
No.141 of 2020 on the file of the XXVI Additional Chief Judge
was filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale
dated 07.04.2014. The petitioner also filed a private complaint
in respect of the same property against the defacto
complainant with the Jubilee Hills Police Station, but till date
no action has been taken against the defacto complainant and
one Balvinder Singh.
4. The petitioner was impleaded for the reason of political
rivalry. Further, W.P.No.17661 of 2020 was also filed
complaining about the harassment of police and interfering in
civil disputes. The said writ petition was disposed off ordering
police to conduct enquiry by following the procedure.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat1 and argued that the evidence of
handwriting expert is not conclusive and when the civil court
had framed an issue whether the documents were fabricated
or not, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that registration of FIR
would cause prejudice to the interests of the parties and
consequently quashed the FIR.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that this modus
operandi was adopted by the petitioner in two other cases also
which are pending investigation. The petitioner firstly
identifies the properties which are vacant for some time and
creates documents claiming ownership on that properties and
accordingly files cases both criminal to get hold of the property
and in the process, extracts money from the original
purchasers. He further submits that agreement of sale in
question dated 07.04.2014 was sent to the handwriting expert
(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 794
and the expert gave opinion that the signatures were
fabricated.
7. In the back ground of the pending cases in between the
parties and also on the basis of allegations made against this
petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct as follows:
i) The petitioner shall submit all his documents to the
Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer shall
consider the representation of the ongoing disputes between
the parties.
ii) The petitioner shall not be arrested for a period of
three weeks from the date of this order and the police can go
ahead with the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal
Procedure thereafter.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed off.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 28.09.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8089 of 2022
Date: 28.09.2022.
kvs
