Madala Rambabu And 3 Others vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 539 Tel

                                1



       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.10989 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioners/A4 to A7 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1974

of 2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court

at Malkajgiri. The offences alleged against the petitioners/A4 to

A7 are under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 463, 464, 468, 469,

470, 471, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.

Perused the record.

3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that he is the

GPA holder of one Lanka Sirisha, his elder sister and she is the

absolute owner of H.No.38-19, Plot No.4, Rohini Colony,

Sainikpuri. The said property devolved on her by way of a will

deed executed by her grand-mother late Vemuri Padmaja Rani

during her life time. Accused No.1 is the maternal uncle of the

2nd respondent/complainant and Accused No.2 is the wife of A1

and Accused No.3 is son of A1 and A2. The complainant's

grandmother died on 03.10.2014 and before her death, she

executed a will deed giving the property to the sister of

complainant. It is however alleged that Accused No.1 managed

Accused No.8 and executed a registered gift deed in favour of

Accused No.3, his son on 05.05.2017, allegedly by fabricating

documents. The case against these petitioners is that they were

witnesses to the registered gift deed and the GPA.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that these petitioners have witnessed the execution of

the registered document and even according to the charge sheet

and statements, they have nothing to do with the differences in

between A1 to A3 and the complainant. It is not the case of the

Police that these petitioners have in any manner fabricated any

documents or done any other acts attracting any penal

consequences, except mentioning that these petitioners were

witnesses to the registered document.

5. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of

complainant/2nd respondent would submit that once they have

acted as witnesses, it can be inferred that they are part of

criminal conspiracy in execution of false documents. For the

said reason, the proceedings against these petitioners cannot

be quashed and they have to undergo trial.

6. Having perused the record, the allegation against these

petitioners is that they acted as witnesses to the registered

documents. None of the witnesses speak about these petitioners

except for the documents themselves which were executed in

the concerned Sub-Registrar's office. The person witnessing a

document does not affirm to the contents of the document or

has anything to do with the rights of the parties. He is merely a

witness to the document being registered in the Sub-Registrar's

office. Witnessing a document which is a gift deed executed by

the father in favour of his son would not in any manner amount

to criminal conspiracy to commit any criminal acts of forgery

and cheating.

7. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent and A1 to A3 belong to one

family. However, disputes are with respect to the ancestral

property.

8. In the said circumstances, without there being any

allegations against these petitioners who have witnessed the

document, the proceedings against them is abuse of the process

of the Court and to secure the ends of justice the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal1 held as follows;

"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

(1) 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

1992 Supplementary (1) SCC 335

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. In view of the aforesaid Judgment, the High Court under

inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can show

indulgence and quash such proceedings.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the

proceedings against petitioners/A4 to A7 in C.C.No.1974 of

2022 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at

Malkajgiri, are hereby quashed.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.02.2023 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10989 OF 2022

Dt. 02.02.2023

tk