Telangana High Court
Dr. Laxmi Bhaskar vs State Of Telangana And Another on 2 April, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.4322, 7574 & 8123 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
These Petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2018
on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
at Nampally, in taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406,
488, 478, 467, 472 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint stating that he
was an ENT Specialist and completed his Post Graduation from All India
Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi and worked for some time at
Delhi and shifted to Hyderabad and started a clinic and hospital at Panjagutta,
Hyderabad in the name and style of "Asian ENT Care Center". He gained
good reputation in his profession. He was also a visiting doctor at NIMS
Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. He got acquainted with A2, who was a
doctor at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. A2 and A3 visited his
clinic at Panjagutta and tried to convince him to purchase a land at
Maheswaram Mandal stating that the said land belonged to their known
persons and convinced the complainant to invest money. The complainant
refused to purchase the same stating that he was not having sufficient amount
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
to pay. But, A2 and A3 continuously persuaded and pressurized him to
purchase the land for a period of three months. Finally, they suggested that
they were going to register the property through A4 and A5, who were the
land owners and asked him to pay the consideration amount after registration
and that they would pay the registration amount of the document and hand
over the registered document. Believing them, the complainant finally
agreed to do so. A2 and A3 handed over the registered document bearing
No. 1040 of 2011 dated 16-04-2011 for an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey No.
650 executed by A4 and A5. Another document was also got executed by A1
in favour of the complainant and his mother vide Doc.No.2527/2011 dated
20-07-2011. The complainant expressed his willingness to visit the Sub-
Registrar Office at the time of registration of the documents. A1 to A3
suggested that as he was a busy doctor, he did not have to attend the Sub-
Registrar Office and that they would take substitute steps for getting
registration.
2.1. The complainant further submitted that A1 to A3 had shown the
agricultural land to him and after handing over the original documents started
demanding the complainant to pay the amount. The complainant paid a total
amount of Rs.41,00,000/- including expenditure of registration. Out of
Rs.41,00,000/-, the complainant paid some amounts through account payee
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
cheques in the name of the accused No. 1, some of the amounts paid through
self cheques, some of the amounts by way of cash to A1 to A3. For the
payment made through cash, the complainant had not taken any receipt as the
amounts received by the accused was reflected in the sale deeds. Altogether
A1 to A3 received Rs 41,00,000/- from the complainant.
2.2. He further submitted that as per the condition before execution of
the sale deed A1 to A3 had to conduct the survey with their money and fix
the boundaries. Accordingly, the complainant was pursuing A1 to A3 to get
the survey done and to fix the boundaries for the land shown to him, but A1
to A3 dragged the matter and finally stated that they would get the survey
done, fix the boundaries and hand over the land in the first week of August,
2014. The complainant kept quiet till August, 2014. Thereafter the
complainant once again asked A1 to A3 to get the survey done, fix the
boundaries and hand over the possession of the land. As they were
postponing the matter, he decided to check the particulars of the land before
the M.R.O, Maheswaram Mandal. The complainant and his well wishers,
Bose Babu and one Ramulu visited Tahsil office along with Harinath
Chowdhury. To their shock, the complainant came to know that the land
shown to him belonged to some third parties and the documents furnished by
A1 to A3 pertaining to the land were forged and created. Al to A3 prepared
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
the rubber stamps of Tahsil office and forged the signatures of the Mandal
office employees and got prepared stating that the land belonged to A1, A4
and A5. The patta pass books and pahani patrikas were prepared by A1 to A3
in the name of A4 and A5. A4 and A5 were innocent tribals of Mahbubnagar
District. Only to make the complainant believe, the accused used their
names, convinced the complainant that the land belonged to A4 and A5. In
fact, the said land in Survey No. 650 belonged to one Ashok Tibriwala,
Bhavani Venkat Reddy and others. The complainant and his well-wisher
Ramulu applied for particulars before the Tahsildar, for the particulars of the
land shown as per the pattadar pass books. The Tahsildar issued a letter dated
08.02.2014 stating that they did not belong to A4 and A5 and gave a reply
that the pattadar pass books and pahani records were forged and fabricated
and that the office of Tahsildar never issued such documents in favour of A4
and A5 and furnished the particulars of the owners of the land in Sy.No.650.
As such, the complainant came to know that the accused persons conspired
together with an intention to cheat him, forged the documents and revenue
records by way of preparing rubber stamp and official material and
convinced the complainant that the land belonged to A4 and A5 and got
registered the said land in the name of the complainant. At the time of
registration, the accused persons furnished false identity records and with the
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
said forged identity records, the accused had misguided the Sub-Registrar.
The complainant approached A1 to A3 and questioned about furnishing
forged documents and fake revenue records whereby, A1 to A3 confessed
and admitted their illegal acts and requested the complainant not to lodge a
complaint and that they would repay the entire amount with bank interest.
The complainant agreed to receive the amount. A1 executed a document
dated 24.09.2014 admitting to repay the amount within one month. As a
security, she handed over the original sale deed of the flat owned by her
father Mr. K.J. Philips. A1 stated that A2 and A3 also received the amount,
out of Rs.41,00,000/-, collected from him. When he insisted A1 to A3 to pay
the amount on 07.04.2014, they refused to transfer the property in his name
and also threatened him with dire consequences.
2.3. The said complainant was referred to the police by the learned
XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.. The same was registered as
Crime No.546 of 2015 under Sections 420, 406, 488, 478, 467, 472 read with
34 of IPC. The police after investigation filed a final report to treat the same
as civil in nature. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.2-complainant
filed a protest petition. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad had taken cognizance of the case for the
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
offences under Sections 420, 406, 488, 478, 467, 472 read with 34 of IPC.
Aggrieved by the said cognizance order, the petitioners-accused filed these
petitions to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2018.
3. Heard Sri N. Avaneesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A1,
Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2, Sri
Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A3 and Sri
Kullapareddy Suresh Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-A1 submitted that the
petitioner-A1 had not committed any offences as alleged by respondent No.2.
Even as per the final report filed by the police, the matter was civil in nature.
The learned Magistrate ought not to have allowed the protest petition, filed
by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 instead of approaching the
civil court for appropriate relief had filed the present complaint only with a
malafide intention to apply pressure on the petitioner with an ulterior motive
to extort huge sums of money. The investigation conducted by the police
also would reveal that A4 and A5 were vendors of the land situated in
Sy.No.650, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and after
examining the relevant documents pertaining to the land, such as patta and
pahani, MRO issued the proceedings dated 24.10.2006. The documents
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
relied by the respondent No.2 did not contain or reveal any information
pertaining to the land in Sy.No.650.
4.1. He further submitted that infact the respondent No.2 was
harassing the petitioner to marry him for the past several many months prior
to filing of the complaint and when the petitioner refused the said demand,
the respondent No.2 falsely implicated the petitioner in the above crime only
to spite her due to vengeance. The respondent No.2 used to send obscene
images to the petitioner and also tried to outrage the modesty of the petitioner
by sexually harassing her. In that regard, the petitioner also lodged a
complaint against respondent No.2, which was registered as Crime No.49 of
2016 for the offences punishable under Section 67 of I.T. Act, 2008 and
Sections 506, 509, 354(a)(b)(d) of IPC and after investigation, the police also
filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.366 of 2017 on the
file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, at
Hyderabad. The respondent No.2 was a chronic litigant. There was also
another case vide C.C.No.98 of 2018 registered against him on the file of XII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 341, 447 of IPC. The allegations
leveled against the petitioner were purely civil in nature, as such, the police
filed a final report. Any further continuation of the proceedings in
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
C.C.No.326/2018 would be an abuse of process of court and prayed to
dismiss the crime against the petitioner-A1.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 contended that the
petitioner was no way concerned with the allegations leveled against him.
The subject property was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioner, by
name, Sri. K.V Hanumantha Rao through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.
1042 of 2011, dated 30-03-2011 along with Mrs. Philips Buleah (who was
arrayed as A1), Mr. Harinath Babu (who was arrayed as A3) and Respondent
No.2 from their vendors, who were arrayed as A4 and A5 in the above case.
Subsequently, respondent No.2 had shown interest to purchase a portion of
land that belonged to A1 and they requested the petitioner to act as a witness
to the registration process and accordingly the petitioner only acted as a
witness to the registered sale deed Doc. No.2527/2011 dated 20-07-2011 on
the file of SRO, Maheshwaram. The respondent No.2 had falsely implicated
the petitioner only to wreck vengeance in view of their personal disputes.
Even if any discrepancies were observed in the revenue records by the de-
facto complainant, the same would not constitute any offence against the
petitioner as he was no way concerned with the same. The Petitioner was not
aware of any litigations pending over the said land. The respondent No.2
upon learning about the same started blaming the petitioner for showing the
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
lands which were in litigation. Infact, the petitioner's grandfather, who
purchased the said land should be treated as an affected party if any
discrepancies were observed with respect to the aforesaid agricultural lands
as he would also be deemed to be deceived by the vendors. The petitioner
neither forced nor induced the respondentNo.2 to purchase the agricultural
lands. He was falsely implicated in the above case and prayed to dismiss the
petition against the petitioner-A2.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-A3 contended that the
police after conducting a free and fair investigation, declared the matter as
civil in nature. Even as per the protest petition, no ingredients of the offences
under IPC were attracted. The petitioner's name was included without any
allegation made against him. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner
were liable to be quashed and prayed to allow the petition by quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner-A3.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand
contended that there were serious allegations against all the accused persons
A1 to A3, as they were the persons who had shown the land to respondent
No.2 at Maheshwaram Mandal which did not belong to them or A4 and A5.
Believing the version of the petitioners-A1 to A3, the respondent No.2 paid
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
huge amounts to them. Subsequently, it was learnt that no such land was
available in Maheshwaram Mandal. The subsequent enquiries made by
respondent No.2 revealed that all the revenue records which were given by
A1 to A3 were false, fabricated and forged documents. Even A1 to A3
prepared the rubber stamps of Tahsildar, Maheshwaram and forged the
signature of Tahsildar and made him to believe that the agricultural land
belonged to A4 and A5. The petitioners-A1 to A3 picked up A4 and A5 from
the village, manipulated the Sub-Registrar and got registered the property,
which was not available on the ground. The schedule of the property shown
in the sale deed was non-existing. The pattadar passbooks were not issued by
the Tahsildar, but were created by A1 to A3. The police filed final report
without conducting investigation. The petitioners received an amount of
Rs.41 Lakhs and created the documents to extract money. On demand by
respondent No.2, they abused and threatened him with dire consequences.
Infact, they also admitted their guilt and agreed to repay the amount, but
failed to repay the same. As such, there was a prima facie case made out
against the petitioners and considering the same, the learned XIV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance of it, as such, the same
could not be quashed and prayed to dismiss the petitions.
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
8. On considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 on record, the
point for consideration now is:
Whether the allegations made in the protest
petition together with the statements of the
complainant and witnesses examined before the
Magistrate taken on their face value would make
out the offences for which the Magistrate had taken
cognizance of?
9. It is settled law that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to
be exercised sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the
criminal proceedings to continue even where the allegations in the complaint
did not make out any offence, would tantamount to an abuse of process of the
Court. In such case, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be
exercised.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC
India Limited 1 on considering the earlier precedents relating to exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stated the principles as follows:
(2006) 6 SCC 736
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
"12.(i) A complaint can be quashed where
the allegations made in 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 the
case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be
examined as a whole, but without
examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous
analysis of the material nor an assessment
of the reliability or genuineness of the
allegations in the complaint, is warranted
while examining prayer for quashing of a
complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed
where it is a clear abuse of the process of
the court, as when the criminal proceeding
is found to have been initiated with
malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance
or to cause harm, or where the allegations
are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however,
be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate
prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to
verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of
the offence alleged. If the necessary factual
foundation is laid in the complaint, merely
on the ground that a few ingredients have
not been stated in detail, the proceedings
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
should not be quashed. Quashing of the
complaint is warranted only where the
complaint is so bereft of even the basic
facts which are absolutely necessary for
making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out : (a)
purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a
criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as
also a criminal offence. A commercial
transaction or a contractual dispute, apart
from furnishing a cause of action for
seeking remedy in civil law, may also
involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceedings are
different from a criminal proceeding, the
mere fact that the complaint relates to a
commercial transaction or breach of
contract, for which a civil remedy is
available or has been availed, is not by
itself a ground to quash the criminal
proceedings. The test is whether the
allegations in the complaint disclose a
criminal offence or not.
13. While on this issue, it is necessary to
take notice of a growing tendency in
business circles to convert purely civil
disputes into criminal cases. This is
obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time
consuming and do not adequately protect
the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a
tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable break down of
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
marriages/families. There is also an
impression that if a person could somehow
be entangled in a criminal prosecution,
there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil
disputes and claims, which do not involve
any criminal offence, by applying pressure
though criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar
Suri vs. State of UP [2000 (2) SCC 636],
this Court observed :
"It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of civil nature, has been
given a cloak of criminal offence.
Criminal proceedings are not a
short cut of other remedies
available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to
exercise a great deal of caution. For
the accused it is a serious matter.
This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which
High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code. Jurisdiction under this
Section has to be exercised to
prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice."
14. While no one with a legitimate
cause or grievance should be prevented
from seeking remedies available in criminal
law, a complainant who initiates or persists
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
with a prosecution, being fully aware that
the criminal proceedings are unwarranted
and his remedy lies only in civil law,
should himself be made accountable, at the
end of such misconceived criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law."
11. As seen from the facts of the case, the complainant purchased
Ac.2-00 gts of land in Sy.No.650 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from A4 and A5 vide registered sale deed
document bearing No.1040 of 2011 dated 16.04.2011 and on the same day,
A1 also purchased Ac.3-00 gts of land in the same survey number from A4
and A5 and the grandfather of A2, by name, Sri V.K. Hanumantha Rao also
purchased some extent of land in the same survey number from A4 and A5.
Subsequently, on 20.07.2011, A1 sold Ac.1-20 gts. of land out of the said
Sy.No.650 to the complainant and his mother and executed a registered sale
deed document No.2527 of 2011 dated 20.07.2011. As per the complainant,
he had not even attended the Registrar office and paid an amount of
Rs.41,00,000/- only after registration. The registration expenditure was also
borne by A1 to A3. He stated that he paid some amount through account
payee cheques in the name of A1, some amount by way of cash to A1 to A3
but had not taken any receipt for the cash payments. No proof was filed by
the complainant in proof of payment of amounts to A1 to A3. His further
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
contention was that A1 to A3 have to conduct the survey with their money
and fix boundaries before execution of the sale deed but had not stated as to
where such condition was stipulated. There was no agreement of sale
between the parties or he could not show any such condition in the sale deed.
His further contention was that he along with his well-wishers, Bose Babu
and one Ramulu visited the Tahsil office along with one Harinath Chowdhary
and decided to check the particulars of the land before the M.R.O.,
Maheshwaram Mandal and stated that to his shock, he came to know that the
land shown to him belonged to some third parties and the documents
furnished by A1 to A3 pertaining to the land were forged and created. But
the complainant failed to examine any of these persons, Bose Babu, Ramulu
or Harinath Chowdhary as witnesses before the XIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate prior to taking cognizance. He got examined one
Amarnath Reddy as PW.3. PW.3 stated before the Court as if he was present
at the time of persuasion by A1 to A3 to the complainant to purchase the said
land. He stated that at first instance the complainant was not interested to
purchase the lands but on rigorous following by A1 to A3, the complainant
accepted to purchase the land. He further stated that subsequently, the
complainant informed him that he paid a sum of Rs.41,00,000/- to A1 and A2
and he intended to get registration. This evidence is a hearsay. He further
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
stated that one or two months later, the complainant again he informed him
that the lands were registered, which was also a hearsay. His further
evidence also would not disclose his witnessing any of the transactions
between the complainant and the accused persons. He stated that the
complainant enquired into the matter through known persons and came to
know that there was no availability of such land purchased by him and his
mother. Thus PW.3 had not even stated the names of the persons through
whom the complainant enquired into the matter. PW.3 further stated that on
one occasion, at the request of the complainant, he attended the meeting
between the complainant and A1 to A3 and A1 to A3 admitted non-
availability of the land and informed that they would compensate and
subsequently, they did not compensate nor returned the consideration amount
or provided any other property. Thus, the evidence of PW.3 is no way
helpful to the case of the complainant.
12. The complainant contended that the documents furnished by A1
to A3 pertaining to the land were forged and created. His contention was that
A1 to A3 prepared the rubber stamps of Mandal office and forged the
signatures of the Mandal office employees and stated to him that the land
belonged to A1, A4 and A5. But he had not examined any of the witnesses
from the Tahsil office or the Mandal office to prima-facie prove his
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
allegations that the documents pertaining to the land, handed over by A1 to
A3 were forged or created. He further stated that the patta passbooks and
pahani pathrikas were prepared by A1 and A3 in the names of A4 and A5.
His contention was that the said land in Sy.No.650 belonged to one Ashok
Tibriwala, Bhavani Venkat Reddy and others. As per his contention, he
came to know about the same when his well-wisher Ramulu, made an
application to the Tahsildar under Right to Information Act for the particulars
of the land shown in the pattedar passbooks of A4 and A5 and the Tahsildar
issued a letter dated 08.12.2014 stating that they did not belong to A4 and
A5and gave a reply that the pattedar passbooks and pahani records were
forged and fabricated and that the office of Tahsildar never issued such
documents in favour of A4 and A5 and furnished the particulars of the
owners of the land in Sy.No.650.
13. The final report filed by the SI of police, Panjagutta would show
that as per the proceedings of the MRO, Maheshwaram and passbooks, A4
and A5 were the land owners and there was no need of manipulation of
records by A4 and A5. The police in the final report stated that as per the
pahani, adangal submitted by the complainant which was obtained by
Ramulu, the well-wisher of the complainant from the Tahsildar,
Maheshwaram mandal, there was no mention of Sy.No.650 and it was
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
pertaining to Sy.Nos.650/UU to 651/E, contrary to the contents of the
complaint.
14. A copy of the adangal pahani filed by the complainant would
disclose the name of A4 as pattedar and possessor for Sy.No.650/A to an
extent of Ac.2-00 gts. and the name of A5 was shown as pattedar and
possessor in Sy.No.650/E. Thus, even as per the final report filed by the
police, A4 and A5 were the land owners and there was no need of
manipulation of records to them. The names of Ashwin KumarTibriwala,
Bhavani Ranga Reddy were shown as pattedars and possessors for other by-
numbers against Sy.Nos.650/UU and 650/RU. Thus, Sy.No.650 was divided
into several by numbers and the names of A4 and A5 were also found for
Sy.No.650/A and 650/E.
15. The copies of the pattedar passbooks and title deeds of A4 and A5
were also filed. The complainant ought to have examined the Tahsildar to
prove his contention that the said passbooks and title deeds were not issued
by the Tahsildar. The complainant was only relying upon a RTI information
applied by one Ramulu to show that the above documents were forged
documents. As seen from the RTI information sought by Ramulu, they
sought for information pertaining to the copy of proceedings
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
No.D/2858/2006 dated 28.10.2006 issued by the MRO, Maheshwaram
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to Smt. E. Dasli, W/o. Gotheya and the
Tahsildar gave a reply stating that on verification of the inward register of the
year 2006, the file bearing No.D/2858/2006 has made an entry against
A.Raju, R/o. Maheshwaram ROR-succession-Thummaloor village,
Sy.No.3801, extent of Ac.2-00 gts. However, it was further mentioned that
even after intensive search, the above file was not available.
16. The sale deed copy registered by Smt. Islavath Dasli and
Mr.Meghavath Gopal @ Gopya in favor of the petitioner dated 30.03.2011
would disclose that the vendor No.1, Smt. Islavath Dasli was the owner and
possessor of Sy.No.650 admeasuring Ac.4-00 gts. situated at Mankhal
Village and Gram Panchayat, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy District
and the same was mutated in pattedar vide patta No.1456, pass book No.Z-
487441, title deed No.Z-487441 and ROR proceedings No.B/2858/2006
dated 24.10.2006 issued by the MRO, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy
District and the vendor No.2 i.e., Meghavath Gopal @ Gopya was the owner
and possessor of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.650 admeasuring Ac.4-
00 gts., situated at Mankhal village and gram panchayat, Maheshwaram
mandal, Ranga Reddy district and the same was mutated in the revenue
records under pattedar vide patta No.1352, pass book No.Z-516235 and title
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
deed No.Z-516235, issued by MRO, Maheshwaram mandal, Ranga Reddy
district.
17. Thus the information sought by the said Ramulu was pertaining to
proceedings bearing No.D/2858/2006, but not for B/2858/2006 pertaining to
A4 and A5. As such, the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram mandal might have given
information that the said entry was made against the person by name A. Raju,
R/o. Thummaloor village, Maheshwaram Mandal for an extent of Ac.2-00
gts. and it was pertaining to Sy.No.3801, which was not corresponding to A4
and A5. Applying for an information mentioning a wrong proceeding
number and without examining the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram mandal to prove
the genunity or otherwise of the pattedar passbooks of A4 and A5 and the
proceedings of MRO, contending that they were forged documents and
further contending that the land was not available on ground and insisting A1
to A3 to provide alternative land or for return of the amount by registering a
false case against them, summoning them to police station to settle the matter
and keeping the documents pertaining to the flat of the father of A1 in his
possession as a security is nothing but blackmailing the petitioners.
18. The trial court issued summons to the present petitioners A1 to
A3 basing on the statement of the complainant and another witness examined
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
as CW-3. When the complainant was contending that the revenue records
were forged and rubber stamps and seals of official witnesses were prepared
by the petitioners, it was the duty of the Court to ascertain the said facts prior
to taking cognizance of the said offences. The trial court ought to have
insisted the examination of the Tahsildar or the concerned officials whose
signatures or stamps and seals were alleged to be forged without acting on
the oral statement of the complainant alone. The complainant made several
allegations like the petitioners filed false identity cards and challans before
the Sub-Registrar. Without examining the Sub-Registrar, the court ought not
to have believed the same.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. 2 wherein while referring to its earlier judgment in National Bank
of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz 3 it was held that:
"It cannot be disputed that while holding the inquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is required
to take a broad view and a prima facie case.
However, even while conducting/holding an inquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is
required to consider whether even a prima facie
case is made out or not and whether the criminal
AIR 2020 SC 1079
(2013) 2 SCC 488
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
proceedings initiated are an abuse of process of law
or the Court or not and/or whether the dispute is
purely of a civil nature or not and/or whether the
civil dispute is tried to be given a colour of criminal
dispute or not."
20. The impugned order would disclose that the learned XIV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance against A1
to A5 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 488, 478, 467, 472 read with
34 of IPC. The offence under Section 478 is pertaining to property mark,
which was repealed. The offence under Section 488 is pertaining to
punishment for making use of any such false mark. The offence under
Section 467 of IPC is pertaining to forgery of valuable security, will, etc.. It
is the duty of the complainant to explain and prove what was the document
which can be treated as a valuable security which was alleged to be forged by
the petitioners herein prior to taking cognizance. The offence under Section
472 of IPC is pertaining to making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc. with an
intent to commit forgery.
21. To attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC,
the following requirements need to be proved.
i. That the representation made by the person was false.
ii. The accused had prior knowledge that the representation
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
he made was false.
iii. The accused made false representation with a dishonest
intention in order to deceive the person to whom it was
made.
22. But, the facts of the case would reveal that A1 had purchased
Ac.3-00 gts. of land in the same survey number from A4 and A5 and the
grandfather of A2 had also purchased some extent of land from A4 and A5.
If A4 and A5 were not having any land existing in the said survey number,
these persons also would be victims, but cannot be made as an accused. As
such, the offence under Section 420 of IPC prima facie appears to be not
applicable to the petitioners.
23. To attract the offence under Section 406 of IPC there should be
entrustment of the property and the petitioners must have dishonestly
misused the said property in violation of the said trust imposed upon them or
converted the property for their own use. There were no such allegations or
prima-facie proof of the same that the petitioners have misused or
misappropriated the amounts. As such, the above ingredients of Section 406
of IPC are also not applicable to the facts of the case.
24. Thus, the learned judge without even looking into the said
provisions whether they were existing or repealed had taken cognizance of
Dr.GRR,J
Crl.P.Nos. 4322,
7574 & 8123 of 2019
the said offences against the petitioners which were not at all applicable as
per the facts of the case. Without examining the Tahsildar who issued the
pattedar passbooks, title deeds or the proceedings, considering them as forged
documents and the stamps and seals on them as forged and taking cognizance
against the persons holding respectable positions, basing only upon the oral
statement of the complainant even after the police filing the final report
stating that as per their investigation, A4 and A5 were land owners and there
was no need for them to manipulate the records is considered as abuse of
process of law. As such, the impugned order of taking cognizance by the
learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is liable to be
quashed.
25. In the result, the Criminal Petitions are allowed, quashing the
proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 02.04.2024
SS
