Telangana High Court
J.Satyanarayana vs The State Of Telangana on 15 March, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.10872 OF 2022
Between:
J.Satyanarayana ... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.03.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to Yes/No
see the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their
Ladyship/Lordship wish to see Yes/No
the fair copy of the Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ Crl.P.No.10872 of 2022
% Dated 14.02.2023
# J.Satyanarayana ... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana
and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.Vedula Chitralekha
^ Counsel for the Respondents:
1) Sri S.Sudershan, Additional Public
Prosecutor for R1
2) Sri Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10872 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P,.C.'), is filed by the
petitioner/A3 to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.182
of 2022, dated 05.09.2022 on the file of Central Crime Station,
Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner/A3 are under
Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint stating that the official
record of the GHMC was falsified by this petitioner and two others.
According to the 2nd respondent, M/s.Aditya Traders (Electrical
Parts Shop), situated at 5-1-555/1, Troop Bazar, Sayed Jung Lane,
Jambagh, Hyderabad, is being run as a Proprietary concern since
1989. A2-sister and A3-Brother/petitioner of 2nd respondent, having
knowledge that the shop is a Proprietary Concern, have made false
claim that it is a Partnership Concern and fabricated a false
provisional trade licence dated 12.05.2015 by tampering the
electronic data of GHMC. The said document was filed in OS.No.298
of 2015 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, and was marked as Ex.P59 in the evidence of
K.Indravathi/A2. The complainant further states his sister and this
petitioner-brother are collectively liable to be prosecuted for
tampering the official electronic data and for uploading forged and
fabricated documents.
4. On a complaint made to the Commissioner and Zonal
Commissioner of GHMC, an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance
Team and found that the EXP-59 which is a Trade Licence dated
12.05.2015 with TIN No.042-024-0260 showing the name of
M/s.Aditya Traders as 'J.J.Om Prakash & others', is proved to be
false.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas, appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is arrayed as an
accused without there being any allegations, only for the reason of
this petitioner supporting his sister in the civil suit, the present
complaint is filed. The document is already filed before the
concerned Court and it is for the said Court to decide about the
correctness or otherwise of the document and the same cannot be
filed as a criminal Complaint and Police cannot investigate.
6. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri Nalin Kumar,
appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that it is a case
wherein the document was fabricated and filed into the Court in
such an event, when the document was fabricated and thereafter
filed into the Court, criminal complaint is maintainable for the said
offences. For the said reason, when the crime is being investigated,
this court cannot thwart investigation.
7. Admittedly, civil suits are pending in between the 2nd
respondent and family members. According to the complaint his
sister and this petitioner/brother in connivance with one Vikas
Kumar who is an out sourcing operator at Goshamahal had created
a fake document which was Provisional Trade Licence and marked
as Ex.P59 in the civil suit. Except stating that Vikas Kumar/A1 an
outsourcing employee in GHMC, Indravathi/A2 sister of 2nd
respondent and this petitioner/A3-brother of 2nd respondent are
collectively liable, there is no mention of the role played by this
petitioner in the alleged fabrication of the Trade Licence in any
manner.
8. The said trade licence was marked through Accused No.2
during the course of trial as Ex.P59. The evidence of the Deputy
Commissioner Officer, Sultan Bazar is also filed. The said Deputy
Commissioner stated about partnership firm. On the requisition
made by this petitioner under RTI Act about Aditya Traders, TIN
No.042-024-0260 in the House bearing No.5-1-/1, Troop bazaar,
information was furnished stating that according to the record it is
a partnership firm consisting of Smt.Kalavathi, Sri J.Ramesh as
partners. The said document is exhibited as Ex.P58. The alleged
fabricated document is filed. It does not reflect that this petitioner is
a partner. In Ex.P59 which is now disputed it is mentioned as
"J.J.Omprakash & others".
9. The dispute is that the 2nd respondent is the Proprietor of
M/s.Aditya Traders, a Proprietary Concern, and this
petitioner/brother of 2nd respondent and sister of 2nd respondent
claimed that it is a partnership firm. The matter is already before
the concerned Civil Court. Even according to the complaint the
allegation of fabrication is not against this petitioner.
10. To attract an offence of cheating there has to be an act of
fraudulent deception pursuant to which property must have been
delivered. No such allegation is made against this petitioner.
11. The alleged fabrication of the Trade Licence is made against
this petitioner on an assumption that he along with his sister/A2
sought the help of Vikas Kumar/A3, who fabricated Ex.P59 by
making entries in the GHMC records, as such, the penal provision
of Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted, in so far as
the petitioner is concerned.
12. To attract an offence under Section 471, the document has to
be used as genuine having knowledge about the document being
fabricated. It is nowhere mentioned that this petitioner had in any
manner used the Trade Licence before any authority.
13. Since none of the ingredients of any of the provisions under
Section 420, 468 and 471 are made out against this petitioner, this
Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings.
14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in FIR No.182 of 2022, dated
05.09.2022 on the file of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, are
hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.03.2023
Note: L.R copy to be marked.
tk
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10872 OF 2022
Dt.15.03.2023
tk
