Telangana High Court

D. Raju, vs The State Of Telangana, on 27 August, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

     CRIMINAL PETITION NOs.6796 AND 6797 OF 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Crl.P.No.6796 of 2024 is filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4

in Cr.No.187 of 2024 of Musheerabad Police Station Hyderabad.

Crl.P.No.6797 of 2024 is filed by the accused Nos.2 and 5 in the

said crime. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash

the proceedings in Crime No.187 of 2024 of Musheerabad Police

Station registered against the petitioners for the offences

punishable under Sections 467, 471, 476, 425, 504 r/w.Section

120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C').

2. The allegations against the petitioners are that a letter

dated 15.05.2024 was received by the 2nd respondent which

contain a reply notice of M.Shiv Shekar, Advocate, to the Bar

Council of Telangana. A complaint was filed before the Bar

Council of Telangana by one K.Balraj, Advocate who is the

husband of 2nd respondent against M.Shiv Shekar, Advocate. In

the reply given by M.Shiv Shekar, a bald and baseless allegation

was made against the 2nd respondent causing intentional

damage to her reputation. Further there were four sworn

affidavits of D. Raju (A.2), V.Gopal (A.1), Ch. Narahari (A.5) and

M.Prasanna Shekar (A.4), which contains bald allegations

against the 2nd respondent. All these affidavits were created and

fabricated and the sworn affidavits prepared by Ch.Narahari

(A.5) in the name of non-existing Manasaveena Chit Fund Pvt.

Ltd., which was closed in the year 2010. However, the seals of

the company were created and the stamp paper was signed by

A.5 in the capacity of Chairman by making a false document

and projecting it to be genuine and cheated. The stamp papers

were also duly attested by C.Samuel (A.6) damaging the

reputation of 2nd respondent. Hence, complaint was filed

against the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior

Counsel representing Sri T.S.Anirudh Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Sri D.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State and Sri

K.Venumadhav, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is

that petitioners are innocents of the offences alleged. The entire

complaint arises from the same issue that is Sub-Judice before

the Bar Council of Telangana. Further the 2nd respondent filed

a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act against the

professional mis-conduct of A.3. A.3 is the advocate appearing

on behalf of V.Gopal (A.1) and V.Sujatha in O.S.No.689 of 2013

pending on the file of XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. The said suit was filed by the 2nd respondent

against accused No.1 and V.Sujatha and four other defendants.

The defendants 1 and 2 therein are the bonafide purchasers.

The defendant No.4 in the said suit is the husband of 2nd

respondent and other defendants are the family members of 2nd

respondent and they internally settled the matter and decided

not to contest the suit. The contesting parties are defendant

Nos.1 and 2. However, now they have backtracked with an

intention to grab the land and pendency of said suit was

suppressed by the 2nd respondent boring grudge against A.3 and

also implicated the wife of A.3 who is none other than A.4.

Absolutely, there is no allegation made against A.4 apart from

stating that sworn affidavit submitted by them is fabricated and

false. Even the allegations are taken into consideration no

offence under Section 467 I.P.C, is attracted as there is no

allegation regarding documents issued by the A.3 that either

they were created or fabricated. In fact, the specific allegation is

against the sworn statement issued by A.5. Therefore, as

against the petitioners, Section 467 of I.P.C is not attracted.

Moreover, if at all there is any fabrication, then the same will be

decided before the statutory authority i.e., the Bar Council of

Telangana.

5. Learned counsel further contended that Sections 471 and

476 of I.P.C, also do not attract against the petitioners. Merely

because of the enmity arising out of pendency of the suit, as A.3

is an advocate for contesting parties in the suit filed by the 2nd

respondent, the above sections have been alleged. In support of

his contentions, he relied on the judgments in R.Nagender

Yadav Vs State of Telangana and another 1 and Rajeshbhai

Muljibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 2. Further there are no

ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 504 of I.P.C.,

as there was no provocation causing break to public peace. In

fact replying to the complaint given by the husband of 2nd

respondent, does not amount to provocation and the ingredients

of the offences do not attract. His further contention is also

that Section 120-B of I.P.C, does not attract, even taking the

allegations prima facie and relied on the judgment in Naresh

1 2022 SCC online SC 1725 2 (2020) 3 SCC 794

Kumar and another Vs State of Karnataka 3. All the facts

have been misrepresented and the allegations that have been

made are fabricated and lack corroboration. The 2nd respondent

has implicated the petitioners out of spite and using the

criminal proceedings vexatiously to convert the civil matter into

criminal weapon. It is also contended that this case is filed only

to take revenge as A.3 is an advocate for the contesting parties

in the suit filed by the 2nd respondent. A bare perusal of the

complaint and the averments of the complaint even if accepted,

none of the offences would make out and only to convert a civil

case into a criminal case, this case is foisted against the

petitioners. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioners.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

would submit that petitioners misused the letter heads of

Manasaveena Chit fund Company which is not in existence and

they filed affidavits on the said letter heads. The only contention

is that they purchased stamp paper in the name of non-existing

Chit Fund Company which was closed way back in the year

2010, created and fabricated the seals in the name of the closed

3 2024 SCC online SC 268

Chit Fund Company and created false documents by

unauthorisedly using the seals of Manasaveena Chit Fund

Company and the stamp papers were signed by Narahari in the

capacity of Chairman and Managing Director and thereby made

a false document and projected it to be genuine and cheated

and caused loss not only to the complainant but also to the

general public and respectable Bar Council of Telangana. He

further submitted that for the disputes between the husband of

2nd respondent and M.Shiv Shekar before the Bar Council, Shiv

Shekar has left no stone unturned in order to prove his

genuinity stooped down to such an extent and got colluded with

his wife, Gopal, Raju, Narahari and C.Samuel and intentionally

and unnecessarily dragged her and damaged her reputation

deliberately to cause loss to her. Therefore, the said allegations

require investigation and prayed the Court to dismiss the

petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions made by both the

counsel, the allegations against the petitioners are for the

offences under Sections 467, 471, 476, 425 and 504

r/w.Section 120-B of I.P.C. To constitute the offence under

Section 467 of I.P.C, the ingredients have to be attracted.

Section 467 of I.P.C, reads as under :

"Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

8. In the present case, there is no transfer of amount basing

on the document which is purported to be a forged document.

There is no delivery of movable or immovable property in this

case. As such, the allegation leveled against the petitioners for

the offence under Section 467 of I.P.C, does not attract.

9. The offence under Section 471 of I.P.C, is also alleged

against the petitioners. The provision under Section 471 of

I.P.C, reads as follows :

"Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]".

10. In the present case, the only allegation against the

petitioners is that they used the document in the name of

Manasaveeena Chit Fund Company, which is not in existence.

There is no such dishonest or fraudulent intention as

petitioners did not gain anything from that document. As such,

Section 471 of I.P.C, is not attracted to the petitioners.

11. Section 476 of I.P.C., deals with counterfeiting the device

or mark used for authenticating the document. There is no

such intent in the present case. Hence, it cannot be said that

the document is a counterfeited document and furthermore, the

documents are before the Bar Council and lis is pending before

it. As such, Section 476 of I.P.C, also does not attract to the

petitioners.

12. Section 425 of I.P.C, alleged against the petitioners deal

with Mischief and wrongful loss or damage to the public or to

any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such

change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or

diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits

"mischief". In the present case, there is no such averment that

any destruction is caused to the property or any damage is

caused to the public. Hence, Section 425 of I.P.C, also does not

attract to the petitioners.

13. Section 504 of I.P.C, alleged against the petitioners reads

as under :

"Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

14. Here there is no threat or there is no provocation to break

public peace even if the averments are taken into consideration,

which do not constitute the offence under Section 504 and

Section 120-B of I.P.C.

15. However, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Naresh Kumar's case, in paras 6 and 7, it is observed as under:

"6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held:

"12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power

is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. 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."

(emphasis supplied)

7. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty v. 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure.

16. Having regard to the above judgment, in the factual

backdrop of the case the petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.6796 of

2024 is an advocate for the contesting defendants in the suit

filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, a civil case cannot be

converted into a criminal case. In R.Nagender Yadav's case,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the matter is

pending before the civil Court, a criminal case cannot be

considered. The relevant portion reads as under :

"15. It appears that the aforesaid aspects of the matter have been overlooked by the High Court. We are conscious of the fact that perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground either to quash the criminal proceedings or even to acquit the accused. We take notice of the fact that as on date the parties are before the civil court. The civil suit being Original Suit No. 1343 of 2016 between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the complainant as a plaintiff is that no sale deed dated 29.12.2010 was executed, whereas the contention of the appellant herein as a defendant in the suit is that the sale deed had been executed by the complainant. The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the legality and validity of the disputed sale deed. The matter is sub judice in the civil court.

16. At this juncture and more particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be proper to permit the criminal prosecution to proceed further on the allegation of the sale deed being forged. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper having regard to what has been highlighted by us to permit the

complainant to prosecute the appellant on this allegation when the validity of the sale deed is being tested before the civil court."

17. In the present case, as the matter is pending before the

Bar Council, filing of criminal case basing on the sworn

affidavits is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, the

allegations leveled against the petitioners do not constitute any

of the offences mentioned in FIR. As such, the proceedings in

Crime No.187 of 2024 of Musheerabad Police Station are liable

to be quashed.

18. Accordingly, Crl.P.Nos.6796 and 6797 of 2024 are allowed

quashing the proceedings against the petitioners herein in

Crime No.187 of 2024 of Musheerabad Police Station.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand

closed.