Telangana High Court
Mohd Samiuddin vs The State Of Telangana on 16 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9705 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 petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
C.C.No.7957 of 2023, on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Chatrinaka
Police Station, Hyderabad against the petitioners stating that she
and other six siblings are the legal heirs of late Mohd Yousufuddin
and as such, they are the joint owners and peaceful possessors of
house bearing No.18-1-544 in Sy.No.92 and 93 situated at
Kandikalgate, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. During the lifetime of their
father, he had partitioned the said property among the petitioners
and other legal heirs and when she was in United Kingdom, one of
her brother i.e., petitioner No.1 has created GPA by forging her
signature and entered into an agreement of sale with third parties.
When the third parties asked her to come forward and register the
property, then she informed that she never executed any GPA and
SKS,J
denied the agreement of sale. Later, when she enquired about the
same with her brother and her family members, they denied the
same and questioned the above said persons and threatened
respondent No.2 with dire consequences. Basing on the said
complaint, Police registered a case in Crime No.406 of 2022 for the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 420 read with 34
of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri M.A. Qavi Abbasi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State
and Sri Mir Mukarram Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
allegations against the petitioners are civil in nature and without
proper investigation, police filed charge-sheet. Therefore, prayed
the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submitted that since there are serious allegations against the
petitioners, quashing of proceedings at this stage does not arise.
Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners forged the
signatures of respondent No.2 and they are trying to sell the
SKS,J
subject property to third parties, which requires trial. 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, it appears that there are civil disputes between the
petitioners and respondent No.2. Further, there are serious
allegations against the petitioners that they forged the signature of
respondent No.2 and created GPA and to that effect she filed the
criminal case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations
levelled against the petitioners 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,
(2013) 10 SCC 591
SKS,J
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 the accused can
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. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar (supra), this
Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However,
the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is
dispensed with unless their presence is specifically required during
the course of trial and subject to the condition that the petitioners
are being represented by their counsel on every date of hearing.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:16.04.2024
SAI
