Telangana High Court
Yeddhanti Madhusudhan Reddy, vs The State Of Telangana, on 23 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3882 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.101 of
2024 of Dichpally Police Station, Nizamabad District, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471,
417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.').
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Dichpally
Police Station against the petitioner stating that the mother of
respondent No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of the
land admeasuring Ac.2.32 guntas in Sy.No.1433, situated at
Bardipur Shivar Village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.
The said land was gifted to her daughters i.e., respondent No.2
and her siblings vide document No.8481 of 2020, dated
10.08.2020. The said property was divided into three shares
and their names were also mutated in revenue records. Later,
partition deed was executed on 04.04.2022. That being so,
respondent No.2 came to know through legal notice that the
SKS,J
petitioner was claiming rights over the scheduled land by way of
agreement of sale, dated 11.09.2016 executed by the mother of
respondent No.2. It is further stated by the petitioner that the
said land was sold to him for an amount of Rs.98.00 lakhs and
out of which Rs.30.00 lakhs and Rs.20.00 lakhs were paid vide
acknowledgment dated 11.09.2016 and 04.11.2016 respectively.
Later, a mutual understanding dated 04.11.2018 was executed
whereby Rs.15.00 lakhs was received and extension of time was
provided for payment of remaining Rs.33.00 lakhs. It is further
stated that after execution of partition deed, the petitioner filed
a suit vide O.S.No.14 of 2023 for specific performance against
respondent No.2 and her siblings. Respondent No.2 obtained
documents relied upon by the petitioner and sent the same to
M/s. Truth labs to verify the signatures of the mother of
respondent No.2, along with a specimen signature. The said lab
reports revealed that the documents were forged and
fraudulently created. Basing on the said complaint the Police
registered a case in Crime No. 101 of 2024. Hence, the present
criminal petition to quash the proceedings.
3. Heard Sri T. Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri G. Tarun Reddy,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
SKS,J
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is innocent and the allegations leveled against him are
vague. He further submitted that the case is completely civil in
nature as the petitioner already filed a civil suit against
respondent No.2 and her siblings and the same is pending
before the District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Learned
counsel further submitted that as per the charge sheet, the
petitioner forged and fabricated the signatures of mother of
respondent No.2, however, respondent No.2 failed to
acknowledge the fact that the signatures of her father and other
witnesses are also present in the documents and they were not
sent to the Truth labs for testing. In fact, the report was
obtained based on the photocopy of the document, as the
original document has been filed before the Court and the same
is not admissible. Hence, prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kunti and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1, wherein in
paragraph No.12, it is held as follows:
(2023) 6 SCC 109
SKS,J
"12. Having regard to the above well-established
principles and also noting that the present dispute is
entirely with respect to property and more particularly
buying and selling thereof, it cannot be doubted that a
criminal hue has been unjustifiably lent to a civil
natured issued."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra vs.
State of Uttarakhand 2, wherein in paragraph No.12 it is held
as follows:
"12. A complaint disclosing civil transactions
may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court
must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such
a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court
should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to
prevent abuse of process of the Court."
7. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and Another vs.
State of Karnataka 3, wherein in paragraph No.7 it is held as
follows:
"7. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet
Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh vs. State
of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal
proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of
(2013) 11 SCC 673
2024 SCC OnLine SC 268
SKS,J
harassment. In Usha Chakraborty vs. State of West
Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine Sc 90, relying upon
Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a
dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a
cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be
quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure."
8. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Hari Lal vs Bhagwati vs.
CBI, New Delhi, wherein in paragraph No.40 it is held as
follows:
"40. It is settled law, by a catena of decisions,
that for establishing the offence of cheating, the
complainant is required to show that the accused had
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making
promise or representation. From his making failure to
keep promise subsequently, such a culpable intention
right at the beginning that is at the time when the
promise was made cannot be presumed..."
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
filed counter denying the averments made in the petition stating
that mother of respondent No.2 gifted the subject land to her
daughters i.e., respondent No.2 and her siblings. It is further
stated that the mother of respondent No.2 never executed any
agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. The report, in
relation to the signatures, issued by M/s Truth Labs clearly
SKS,J
revealed that the petitioner committed acts of forgery and
cheating, as such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 relied on the judgment of this Court in State
of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 4, wherein in paragraph
No.14, it is held as follows:
"14. The High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court
of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several
judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used
sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court,
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from
giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire
facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced before
the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or
legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in
their true perspective without sufficient material."
11. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priti Saraf vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
wherein in paragraph Nos.30 and 31, it is held as follows:
"30. Be it noted that in the matter of exercise of
inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement
is to see whether continuance of proceedings would be
a total abuse of process of the Court. The Criminal
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for
investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the
event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt
to the known procedure of law, it must use proper
circumspection with great care and caution to interfere
in the complaint/FIR/Charge-sheet in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction.
31. In the instant case, on a careful reading of
the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot
be said that the complaint does not disclose the
commission of an offence. The ingredients of the
offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot be
said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that
whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise
correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the
evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply
because there is a remedy provided for breach of
contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance
of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the Court
to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only
remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in
any manner, will be an abuse of process of the Court for
exercising inherent powers of the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing such proceedings."
12. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the
learned counsel and having gone through the material available
on record, it appears that the case is civil in nature. The main
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
mother of respondent No.2 executed agreement of sale in the
year, 2016 and the partition done by respondent No.2 was in
SKS,J
the year, 2022. The police cannot register the case basing on
the forensic analysis issued by M/s. Truth labs as the report
was basing on the Photostat copy but not on the original
document. When the suit is for specific performance, the
original documents are before the Civil Court, and they have to
file an application before the Civil Court for sending the same to
the Government lab along with the contemporary signatures.
13. In view of the law laid down in Bheri Nageswara Rao vs.
Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao 5, this Court has categorically held
that the comparison of disputed siguatures on the Photostat
copy with the original signature of the then Tahsildar in D.K
Register is erroneous. If really, there is any doubt about the
signature, the second respondent ought to have called upon the
petitioner to produce the original patta for limited purpose of
comparision of disputed signature of the Tahsildar on the patta
with the signature available in the D.K Register. Instead of
resorting to such procedure, the second respondent himself has
gone to the extent of comparing the signature of the Tahsildar
appearing on the Photostat copy with the signature in D.K.
Register without any sanction of law.
2006 (4) ALD 295
SKS,J
14. In the present case, the document sent to the M/s. Truth
lab is Photostat copy. At this stage, the Police cannot conclude
on the report of the said Lab, which is given basing on the
Photostat copy. Further contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that when there is a civil suit pending before the
trial Court, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated, whereas,
the contention of respondent No.2 is that the mother of
respondent No.2 never executed agreement of sale in favour of
the petitioner and when she came to know that the said land
was sold in favour of petitioner, she sent the signatures to M/s.
Truth lab and the report reveals that the signatures are forged
and fabricated, as such, she filed a criminal case against the
petitioner. However, based on the forensic analysis, the
Investigating agency cannot conclude that documents are
forged. Further, the investigation is at initial stage and without
going into the merits of the case, prima facie, the alleged forgery
is basing on the FSL report by comparing Photostat copy is not
in accordance with law.
15. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of directing
the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down under
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and also the guidelines formulated by the
SKS,J
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar 6
scrupulously. However, the petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer as and when required by furnishing
information and documents as sought by him in concluding the
investigation. The petitioner/accused shall file all the
documents which he ought to file to prove that it do not come
under the criminal offences and the Investigating Officer shall
consider the same before filing appropriate report before the
Magistrate.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 23.04.2024
SAI
(2014) 8 SCC 273
