Telangana High Court
Khaja Jowhar Ali Siddiqui vs The State Of Telangana on 1 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12519 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.10198
of 2022, on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant
lodged a complaint before the Police, Afzalgunj Police Station,
Hyderabad, against the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused
stating that the petitioner is her younger brother and accused
Nos.2 and 3 are his close friends. It is further stated that they
purchased the Matruka Property of complainant's family bearing
premises No.5-2-1038 and 1039, admeasuring 186 square years,
consisting of Ground floor and first floor, situated at Mozmjahim
Market, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. It is further stated that her late
father owns approximately 300 square yards, which is evident as
per registered documents. Her father was blessed with five
daughters and two sons, including herself and the petitioner. Her
father died on 29.10.1979 leaving behind them and her mother as
legal heirs. In the year 2018, respondent No.2 completely shifted
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12519 OF 2023
to Hyderabad. After few months, when she enquired with the
petitioner about the properties of her father, being a share holder,
he told that she would get 1/9th share and he would get 2/9th
share. Later, he did not give any response and started avoiding
her. On enquiry through other siblings and relatives, she came to
know that the petitioner in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3 and
another transferred the properties in the name of accused Nos.2
and 3 and another. Thereafter, she searched for the original
documents and received the certified copy of sale deed, vide
document No.2081 of 1990 from the Joint Sub-Registrar, R.O.,
Hyderabad, wherein the sale deed was executed with regard to
subject property and in the said sale deed respondent No.2 was
shown as vendor No.6 being represented by her G.P.A. holder. It is
further stated that respondent No.2 never executed any G.P.A and
she was in Saudi Arabia at the time of execution of the said sale
deed. Basing on the said complaint, Police registered a case in
Crime No.464 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section
420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the IPC and after
completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the II
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri N. Krishna Sumanth, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner/accused as well as
Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12519 OF 2023
behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
complaint itself shows that it is a vexatious complaint and
respondent No.2 filed civil suit for partition and separate
possession and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,
she preferred appeal and the same was also dismissed. After
unsuccessful attempts only, respondent No.2 filed the present
complaint with false allegations. There is limitation for taking
cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 468 of the IPC,
as such, the complaint is barred by limitation and prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that since there are serious allegations against the
petitioner, quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise.
He further submitted that limitation would not apply to the present
case as the punishment for the offence under Section 468 of IPC is
exceeding three years. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the
petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and having gone through the material available on
record, though the civil disputes between the petitioner and
respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 was unsuccessful in the civil
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12519 OF 2023
cases as such, the criminal case was filed disputing her signatures
in G.P.A. Further, are not existing, there are serious allegations
against the petitioner that he forged the signature of respondent
No.2 in the year 1990. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
allegations levelled against the petitioner do not constitute the
offence.
7. It is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Umesh Kumar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another 1, wherein in paragraph No.20 it is held as follows:
"20. The scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C is well
defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the
High Court to give effect to an order under Cr.P.C; to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court; and to otherwise
secure the ends of justice. The extraordinary power is to
be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of
such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to
appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material
documents on record to the extent of its prima facie
satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for
proceedings against the accused and the Court cannot look
into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a
matter for trial. Any document filed along with the petition
labelled as evidence without being tested and proved,
cannot be examined. The law does not prohibit
entertaining the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for
quashing the charge-sheet even before the charges are
framed or before the application of discharge is filed or
even during the pendency of such application before the
Court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the
application merely on the ground that theaccused can
(2013) 10 SCC 591
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.12519 OF 2023
argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of
the charge. However, the inherent power of the Court
should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution
but can be save the accused from undergoing the agony of
a criminal trial."
8. Further, the contention of the petitioner is that the offence
levelled against him is barred by limitation. The offence
punishable under Section 467 of IPC is up to 10 years. Therefore,
the contention of the petitioner that it is barred by limitation
cannot be considered. Therefore, this Court does not find any
merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The
appearance of the petitioner/accused before the trial Court is
dispensed with unless his presence is specifically required during
the course of trial and subject to the condition that the petitioner is
being represented by his counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 01.04.2024
SAI
