Telangana High Court
Konda Srinivas vs State Of Telangana on 4 January, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.1046 OF 2018
Between:
Konda Srinivas and others ... Petitioners
And
The State of Telangana
Through Public Prosecutor and another. ..Respondents/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED :04.01.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No.1046 of 2018
% Dated 04.01.2024
# Konda Srinivas and others ... Petitioners
And
$ The State of Telangana
Through Public Prosecutor and another Respondents/Complainants
! Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Addl. Public Prosecutor for R1
Sri T.P.Acharya for R2.
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1046 of 2018
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/A1 to 4 & 6 in C.C.No.159 of 2017 on
the file of VI Additional Junior First Class Magistrate at
Warangal for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and
406 of IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant filed a
complaint alleging that her husband Konda Linga Murthy has
two brothers namely Konda Srinivas (A1), Konda Krishna
Murthy (not accused). He has two sisters namely Bura Swathi
(A3) and Konda Srilakshmi (A4)/4th petitioner. A2 is the
mother. There is family property to an extent of Acs.2.23
guntas. However, after the death of father of A1, the properties
were not distributed. On 25.06.2014, A1 created a fake
passbook by separating 0.35 guntas from Acs.2.23 guntas and
with the help of A2, who is the mother of A1, sisters A3 and
A4, sold the said 0.35 guntas for sale consideration of
Rs.13,13,000/- to A9. Having come to know about the
transaction, the defacto complainant obtained documents.
They came to know that fake patta documents and fake
passbooks were prepared. On the basis of the said false
documents, A1 sold the joint property for which reason, the
defacto complainant filed complaint seeking investigation.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the police filed charge
sheet against the accused 1 to 12. It is alleged in the charge
sheet that illegal acts were committed by A1 to A5 by
fabricating documents. A6, A7, attested as witnesses in the
sale deed of A9 and the remaining land of Ac.1.28 guntas was
sold to A10 and A11 on 25.06.2014. For the said transaction,
A7 and A8 attested as witnesses.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
submit that on the very same allegations, the husband of the
defacto complainant namely Konda Linga Murthy, who is the
brother of A1 filed a private complaint on 08.10.2014. The said
complaint was registered as S.R.No.5416 of 2014. By order
dated 21.01.2015, the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Warangal dismissed the complaint as there were
no grounds to proceed against the accused. Thereafter,
questioning the said orders, Criminal Revision was filed vide
Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2015 before the Sessions Court. During
pendency of the said revision, the 2nd respondent, who is the
wife of Konda Linga Murthy filed complaint regarding the very
same transactions, which the VI JFCM Court, Warangal
dismissed as not maintainable. The present complaint was
filed on 28.08.2015. On 21.01.2015 complaint was dismissed
and dismissal of the complaint was confirmed by the learned
Sessions Judge on 14.12.2017. While the revision was
pending, police filed charge sheet on 05.04.2016. There cannot
be two complaints on the very same transactions and the
disputes are purely civil in nature.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent/ defacto complainant would submit that earlier
complaint did not specify regarding fabrication of patta
No.674, pass book No.81864 and the other patta No.675, pass
book no.81862. Both the pattas were issued by Mandal
Revenue Officer, Warangal Mandal. However, on the
application filed under Right to Information Act, the office of
the Tahsildar, Warangal Mandal has given reply on
24.07.2015 stating that the details of the said patta pass
books were not available in 1-B Form 7, 17 records during
inspection. Since the earlier complaint filed by the husband
did not specify regarding the pass books, present complaint
can be maintained and the accused have to be tried for
fabrication of documents.
6. Learned Magistrate, on the basis of complaint filed by the
husband of the 2nd respondent found that there are disputes
in between the brothers and family members which were
pending adjudication. High Court had granted order of
injunction in ASMP No.1051 of 2007 in AS No.279 of 2007
filed by A5 and other legal heirs of Konda Lingaiah restraining
the legal heirs from alienating the subject land until further
orders. In case, the land was alienated, it would amount to
violation of the orders passed by High Court in A.S.No.279 of
2007 for which remedy lies elsewhere. Further, the aggrieved
have to seek cancellation of the documents or declaration to
the effect that the documents were null and void.
7. In the criminal revision filed, the learned Sessions Judge
found that there are disputes between legal heirs, which are
subject matter of partition suit O.S.No.16 of 2000. Aggrieved
by the orders in the suit, A.S.No.279 of 2007 was filed.
Learned Sessions Judge further discussed that sale deed,
agreement of sale-cum- GPA and registered GPA, all dated
12.06.2014 were executed by A5 in respect of the suit land.
High Court had restrained the legal heirs from alienating the
subject land until further orders. The learned Sessions Judge
further concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate
that the parties should have approached High Court or the
Civil Court seeking cancellation of the documents executed by
A1 to A5.
8. The accusation by the 2nd respondent regarding the sale
of land by the petitioners herein was already filed before the
Magistrate Court by the husband of the 2nd respondent. A
reading of the orders in the Criminal Revision Petition No.35 of
2015, which was decided on 14.12.2017, it was not brought to
the notice of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and consequent charge
sheet.
9. In the complaint filed by the husband of the 2nd
respondent, both the registered sale deeds dated 12.06.2014
and also the orders passed by this Court in ASMP No.1051 of
2007 were filed.
10. The sale deeds which were registered were already filed in
the private complaint and considered by the learned
Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge. On the very
same allegations during the pendency of adjudication of the
complaint filed by the 2nd respondent's husband, separate
complaint regarding the very same transactions cannot be
filed. The 2nd respondent has suppressed the fact that her
husband had filed a criminal complaint before the Court
which was pending adjudication at the time of lodging the
complaint by her. Regarding the very same transactions, the
husband was prosecuting the private complaint by filing
Revision petition before the Sessions Court. The police also
during investigation did not refer to the pending adjudication
before the learned Sessions Judge regarding the complaint
filed by the 2nd respondent's husband.
11. To attract an offence of cheating, there should be an act
of deception. The person so deceived should have delivered
property being induced by the act of deception. To attract an
offence under Section 468 of IPC, a person should have made
false documents with an intention to cause damage or support
any claim or to commit fraud. Section 471 of IPC is for using a
fabricated document with a fraudulent, dishonest intention, as
genuine, having knowledge about the falsity of the document.
12. Admittedly, disputes are regarding the family joint
property. Restraint orders were passed by this Court from
alienating the property. Alienation, if any, would be void for
the reason of the restraint orders passed by this Court,
subject to outcome of the Appeal. As already found by the
learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, the sale
transactions dated 25.06.2014, disposing the subject land
under two different sale deeds on the very same day, the 2nd
respondent and her husband ought to have taken steps to
cancel the said documents.
13. For the reasons best known to the 2nd respondent and
also her husband, two different complaints were filed and the
2nd respondent had not referred to the pending adjudication of
the criminal complaint filed by her husband before the
Sessions Court. Likewise, the 2nd respondent's husband also
did not bring to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge
regarding criminal complaint filed by the wife about the very
same sale transactions.
14. The argument of the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent that the patta pass books numbers which were
mentioned in the sale deeds were not mentioned in the
complaint of the 2nd respondent's husband, for which reason,
separate complaints can be maintained, is incorrect. When the
sale documents which are genesis of the Criminal complaint
filed by husband of 2nd respondent were considered by the
Magistrate and Sessions Court, filing separate complaint on
the ground that numbers of pass books mentioned in the sale
deeds are incorrect, is not tenable.
15. For suppression of material information before the
Sessions Court and present police complaint, further also for
the reason of none of the ingredients of any of the penal
provisions being made out, this Court is inclined to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
16. In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/A1
to A4 & A6 in C.C.No.159 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional
Junior First Class Magistrate at Warangal, are hereby
quashed.
17. Criminal Petition is allowed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 04.01.2024
Note: L.R.copy to be marked
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1046 of 2018
Dt.04.01.2024
kvs
