Telangana High Court

Mudhunuri Rama Konda Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 19 February, 2024

Author: G.Radha Rani

Bench: G.Radha Rani

                                   1
                                                                     Dr.GRR,J
                                                          Crl.P.No.1809 of 2024




        THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.1809 OF 2024

O R D E R:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by

the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking to grant anticipatory bail in

the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.68 of 2024 on the

file of Shankarpally Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 419 of Indian Penal

Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 05.02.2024 at

about 20:30 hours, the defacto complainant lodged a report before the

police stating that he was the Managing Partner of firm by name

Progressive Agro Services. Their firm owned land ad-measuring Acres

5.12 guntas in Survey Nos.334 & 335 of Shankarpally Village &

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for which they have entered into

registered Development Agreement-cum-GPA dated 10.08.2023

registered as Doc.No. 3703/2023 with SRO Shankarpally with M/s

Project next Private Ltd., a company registered under the companies

Act, for development of the said land. The Development Agreement-

cum-GPA was executed validly and legally by him on behalf of the

Dr.GRR,J

firm. He received a legal notice regarding filing of W.P.No.32799 of

2023, wherein the petitioners herein had prayed to declare the above

said Development Agreement-cum-GPA as null and void and were

making false allegations that the said property was sold by the

complainant under an unregistered sale deed dated 22.12.2010. The

above said persons had not only forged his signatures on the said sale

deed document, but played fraud by creating the said sale deed

document, which he never ever signed. They also created a fake and

forged death certificate (issued by the gram panchayat in Krishna

District) showing him as died on 05.12.2014 in Krishna district, when

he was alive and residing in Kakinada. The said sale deed was a made

up document, brought into existence to grab the above stated property.

The said persons claimed that he died in 2014, but the sale deed was

validated in 2023. They also forged a registration document of the firm

with the same name and number. But the said document attached to the

writ petition papers would reveal the address of the firm as 7-9-6,

Ramarao Peta, Kakinada, East Godavari District which address was not

part of the original registration of firms issued by the Registrar of

Firms. The seal of the Registrar of firm was also different on the forged

document. They also forged the documents pertaining to Progressive

Dr.GRR,J

Agro Services showing the Pan Number as ABEFP0882E when the

Pan Number of the firm was AAIFP7709D. Thus, the above persons

had indulged in forging Government documents by creating fake pan

card and also fake firm registration. The online EC obtained by him on

24.01.2024 would disclose that one Mudagula Vara Prasad on behalf of

their Firm Progressive Agro Services had illegally and fraudulently and

as part of conspiracy executed a sale deed document No. 287/2024

registered with SRO Shankarpally, in favor of one Mr. Neelam Goud,

P. Ravindra Kumar, Pelimelli Prasanth and Kasthuri Hari Ranjani for

the property of their firm, though the said Mudagula Varaprasad had no

connection with the above Firm Progressive Agro Services and he had

no right to deal with the subject property. Thus, the fraud was evident

from the face of it as the sale deed was made for Rs. 42,40,000/- when

the market value was 7,18,25,600/- as per the EC itself. Basing on the

EC copy, the involvement of Mudagula Vara prasad and other so called

purchasers with the active collusion of Sri B. Srinivas Sub-Registrar

Shankarpally was revealed. He further submitted that a person by

name Rakesh and others were following him in Kakinada and were

trying to throw him out of his property.

Dr.GRR,J

3. Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police Shankarpally,

registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2024 for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 419 of Indian Penal Code.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3

and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3

submitted that the matter was civil in nature, the petitioners were

bonafide purchasers of the subject land. They had challenged the

development agreement dated 10.08.2023 before this Court. The

defacto complainant made omnibus allegations against the petitioners

without ascertaining the facts. Even the police without conducting

proper preliminary enquiry, registered the F.I.R against the petitioners

which was bad in law, more particularly, when the very same police

had registered an F.I.R against the respondent No.1, based on a

complaint lodged by accused No.4 herein, i.e., M. Varaprasad vide

Crime No.31 of 2024, dated 16.01.2024 for the offences punishable

under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code which was

pending investigation. In the said complaint, accused No.4 i.e.,

Varaprasad Mudagula specifically alleged that his father namely

Dr.GRR,J

Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Rao (the defacto complainant-

respondent No.1 herein) along with him started Progressive Agro

Services Firm and his father had purchased the subject land in the

name of the Firm through AGPA vide doc.No.1217 of 2006, dated

19.01.2006 and thereafter, a sale deed was also executed in their firm

name vide doc.No.667 of 2008 and thereafter, respondent No.1 herein

set up a false claim over the firm as well as over the subject land

claiming to be the original owner. Based on the said complaint, the

police had registered Crime No.31 of 2024.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that with

their lifetime earnings, they purchased the subject land through sale

deed, dated 22.12.2010 and later, got validated the same by paying the

deficit stamp duty. The vendor of the petitioners i.e., Satyanarayana

Rao MVV who claimed to be Managing Partner of M/s Progressive

Agro Services Firm had alienated in their favour by receiving total

sale consideration way back in the year 2010. Subsequently, the said

person disappeared without any information or contact. When the

petitioners came to know about the execution of the development

agreement by respondent No.1, immediately they approached this

Court and got filed W.P.No.32799 of 2023, as they were bonafide

Dr.GRR,J

purchasers of the subject land. Even if the allegations leveled in the

complaint by respondent No.1 were taken to be true, the petitioners

would become victims but not accused. The issue between the parties

was sub-judice in W.P.No.32799 of 2023 filed by the petitioners

herein and W.P.No.3036 of 2024 filed by the respondent No.1 herein

in respect of the very same subject land. The police without verifying

and conducting preliminary enquiry, registered the F.I.R against the

petitioners which was nothing but abuse of process of law. The

respondent No.1 was trying to settle scores by way of using criminal

force with active aid of police which was not permissible under law.

The petitioners had made specific representation on 13.02.2024

narrating the above facts. Despite the same, the police were trying to

arrest the petitioners. The petitioners were apprehending their arrest,

as such prayed to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the

event of their arrest.

7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the role played by the

petitioners would need to be investigated.

8. Perused the record. The record would disclose that the

Dr.GRR,J

petitioners filed W.P.No.1560 of 2024 to quash the proceedings against

them in the present crime and a protection was granted by this Court

directing the Investigating Officer to follow the procedure laid down

under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and to follow the guidelines issued by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and

another 1 scrupulously.

9. The contention of the petitioners was that despite the directions

of this Court, the respondent-police without issuing notice to them

under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., were making enquiries about them. As

such, they were apprehending their arrest and relied upon the judgment

of High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench) in Ramappa @

Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka through Range Forest Officer 2

wherein it was held that:

"Despite the police issuing notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused for appearance, the petitioner was entitled for anticipatory bail even after issuance of such notice".

10. It was held in the above judgment that:

a person gets apprehension of being arrested in two situations:- firstly when a 'Notice' was issued to him under Section 41-A(1) of the Code and secondly, after complying the terms of 'Notice' the Police Officer forms an opinion that such person ought to be

(2014) 8 SCC 273

2021 SCC Online Kar 12793

Dr.GRR,J

arrested or in a situation, such person fails to comply the terms of 'Notice' or was unwilling to 'identify' himself.

In all the above three situations such person can maintain an anticipatory bail application as Section 41-A of the Code does not stipulate the specific condition of notice or appearance."

11. The record also would disclose that there was a complaint

registered against the defacto-complainant by the son of the defacto-

complaint himself which was registered as Crime No.31 of 2024 for the

offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code

which was pending investigation and the petitioners had filed

W.P.No.32799 of 2023 and the respondent No.1-defacto complainant

had also filed W.P.No.3036 of 2024 in respect of the very same subject

land. As per the petitioners, the defacto complainant had alienated the

subject property by receiving valid sale consideration way back in the

year 2010 and as such, even if the allegations leveled in the complaint

were true, they would become victims but not the accused.

12. Considering all the circumstances of the case and that both the