Telangana High Court
T.Chakradhar Rao vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14978 OF 2016
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against
petitioner/A2 in FIR No.321 of 2016 on the file of Narayanaguda Police
Station, Hyderabad registered for the offences under Sections 406, 467,
468, 420, 471 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that her father died on
11.03.2004. They were five sisters and one brother. During life time of
their father, he owned two petrol bunks, one at Saroornagar and another
at RTC Cross roads.
3. The main allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and
her brother colluded and gave an application on 25.06.2004 to M/s.
Indian Oil Corporation for reorganization of dealership in respect of RTC
Cross Road Petrol pump. Along with the said application, A1 and this
petitioner submitted a joint declaration alleged to have been given by the
mother and four sisters relinquishing their rights and giving no-objection
for transferring of the shares in favour of Rapol Ravindranath/A1.
4. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed a false document and
signatures of the defacto complainant and sisters were forged on the said
letter. On the basis of the said application and letter, the authorities of
M/s.Indian Oil Corporation changed the constitution of the dealership
firm in favour of brother-A1.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that
prior to lodging the present complaint on 21.09.2016, civil suit was filed
by the 2nd respondent in the civil Court vide O.S.No.301 of 2016 on
24.05.2016. In the said civil suit, the question of fabrication of the
undertaking given by the 2nd respondent is in question. For the said
reason, the dispute being civil in nature and also being adjudicated by
the civil Court, the proceedings have to be quashed. He relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai
Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and another (2020 AIR (SC) 818),
wherein it is held as follows:
"18. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015, leave to defend was granted to
respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar on 19.04.2016. On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the
said Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed in the suit were sent to the handwriting expert.
The handwriting expert has opined that signatures in all the four receipts did not tally with the
sample signatures which were of respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter,
complaint was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR No.I-194/2016 was registered on
28.12.2016 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467,
468, 471 and 114 IPC. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the
Summary Suit No.105/2015, issue No.5 has been framed by the Court "whether the defendant
proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the forged signature illegally and created forged receipts".
When the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit, in our
view, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the
parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit."
6. In the present case also, the civil suit has been filed and
genuineness or otherwise of the letter containing signatures of the 2nd
respondent is being adjudicated by the civil Court. Further, it is not the
case of the 2nd respondent that any part of that share of her father was
claimed by this petitioner. The petitioner is an outsider and the property
disputes in the family are being adjudicated by the civil Court. Under
similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the
criminal proceedings in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel's case (supra).
7. By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment and the observations
made, the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in FIR No.321 of 2016 of
Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 20.09.2023
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.14978 of 2016
Date: 20.09.2023.
kvs
