Telangana High Court
Jahangir Hussain vs The State Of Telangana on 12 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is
one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of
together by way of this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions are 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,
2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Crime No.99 of 2015 of Mir
Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 506, 120(B) read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
'I.P.C.') and 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
3. The brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.2/de
facto complainant, who is one and the same in both the cases,
filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before
the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad stating that he is the absolute owner and
possessor of the house bearing No.12-2-64, admeasuring
152.9 square yards, situated at Muradnagar, Hyderabad. He
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
purchased the said property by virtue of registered sale deed
for a valuable sale consideration from its owners. On
18.12.2012, when accused Nos.1 to 3 approached respondent
No.2 and offered to purchase the said property at a low price,
the same was refused by him, as such, accused Nos.1 to 3
interfered with the possession in and over the property. Due
to which, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.2941 of
2012 before the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad with all original documents and the Court
below granted interim injunction in his favour. Later, the
accused violated the orders of the Court below and
dispossessed respondent No.2 and beat them, as a result,
respondent No.2 and his brother sustained injuries.
Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 with the help of anti social
elements trespassed into the subject premises, for which,
respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Asifnagar
Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.56 of
2013 against accused Nos.1, 2, 6, 7 and 13 and the same was
numbered as C.C.No.582 of 2013.
4. Furthermore, accused Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the
Court below and filed counter and written statement in the
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
above suit along with forged and fabricated documents with
an intention to grab the subject property. It is further stated
that the accused mislead the Court below by filing wrong
translations of the documents fabricated and forged in Urdu
to English and also created the documents by giving the
house address of respondent No.2 and obtained Aadhar cards,
Ration card, Gas Connection etc. On receipt of the said
information, respondent No.2 approached the concerned
authorities and cancelled all the above said documents.
Therefore, the accused have committed heinous offences and
requested the Court below to take necessary action.
5. Basing on the said Complaint, the case was referred to
the concerned Police and they registered a case in Crime
No.99 of 2015 of Mir Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad.
Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioners filed the
present Criminal Petitions to quash the proceedings against
them.
6. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
No.1-State and Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
initially the case was referred to Mir Chowk Police Station and
later investigation was done by Mooghalpura Police. He
further submitted that when the matter is referred to a
particular Police Station for investigation, without permission
of the Court, the file cannot be transferred to any other Court.
Therefore, the investigation done by the Police is null and
void.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and
respondent No.2 and only to settle the civil scores, respondent
No.2 lodged the private complaint, which is not in accordance
with law and therefore, the same is not maintainable.
Learned counsel further submitted that the allegations leveled
against the petitioners are vague and baseless and proceeding
further with the criminal case against them is nothing but
sheer abuse of process of law, as such, prayed the Court to
quash the proceedings against them.
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Priyanka Shrivastava vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh 1, wherein it is observed that once the Court refers a
complaint under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C., to a particular
Police Station, then the said Police alone shall complete the
investigation and file report, but they have no right to suo
moto transfer the file to any other Police Station.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners
stating that the criminal petitions are not maintainable as
there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings against
the petitioners. The Petitioners by suppressing the real and
material facts filed these petitions to protect themselves from
legal punishment and to escape from the clutches of law.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted
that the case of the petitioners is that the complaint was
transferred from one Police Station to another Police Station,
which is not in accordance with law. On going through the
LAWS (APH) 2003-6-39
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
said contention, learned counsel submitted that for the
purpose of fair and unbiased investigation, Senior Police
Officer i.e., Inspector of Police, Moghalpura was entrusted the
matter for fair and proper investigation. He further submitted
that the case was registered in the year 2015, the
Investigating Officer of Mir Chowk Police Station was very
close to the petitioners, as such, he failed to take action in
accordance with law and there is also an inordinate delay of
two years, in conducting the investigation on the part of the
Investigation. Being frustrated by the inaction and delay of
the Investigating Officer, respondent No.2 filed a complaint
before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and the same
was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Mir Chowk Police
Station. Thereafter, when there was again delay in taking up
the investigation, respondent No.2 filed one more complaint
before the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and the same
was forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mir
Chowk Division, who after examining the matter, has
appointed Inspector of Police, Moghalpura, Hyderabad, as the
Investigating Officer, Moghalpura, who in turn has completed
the Investigation and handed over the case to the Inspector of
Police, Moghalpura instead of Sub Inspector of Police,
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
Mirchowk. Therefore, there is no suo moto transfer of the case
to any other Police Station as stated by the petitioners.
Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petitions.
12. In support of his submission, learned counsel for
respondent No.2, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. P.B. Sourabhan and
others 2 , it is observed that a higher officer can appoint an
officer to conduct further investigation in a fair and unbiased
manner quoting Section 36 of Cr.P.C.
13. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalmuni Devi vs. State of Bihar 3,
it is observed that facts may give rise to a civil claim and also
amount to an offence. Merely because a civil claim is
maintainable does not mean that the criminal complaint
cannot be maintained.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Komal
2016 LawSuit (SC) 206
2000 LawSuit (SC) 1956
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
and two others vs. State of U.P. and Another 4, wherein in
paragraph No.20, it is held as under:
"20. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada
Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha maharaj vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh.,1999 AIR (SC) 2332 and in N.P.
Jharia vs. State of M.P., 2007 AIR (SC) 2677, it has
been held that even after the Court took cognizance
of any offence, on strength of police report first
submitted, it is open to Police to conduct further
investigation. In such a situation power of Court to
direct the Police to conduct further investigation
can not have any inhibition. There is nothing in
Section 173 (8) to suggest that the Court is obliged
to hear the accused before any such direction is
made. Casting of any such obligation on Court
would only result in encumbering it with burden of
searching for all potention accused to be afforded
with opportunity of being heard."
15. At this stage, it is imperative to note that to quash the
proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to
see whether the averments in the complaint would prima facie
show that the offence as alleged by the Police constitutes.
Further, while dealing with the petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C., the Court has to take into consideration the
avermetns made in the complaint and the statements of the
witnesses and if the averments made therein do not constitute
2023 LawSuit (All) 1390
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
any offence, as alleged against the accused persons, then the
proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed.
16. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra
Kori 5, wherein in paragraph No.14, reads as under:
"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."
17. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, the main
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that
though the civil cases are pending before the Court below,
initiation of criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
process of law. On going through the said contention, as held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalmuni Devi (supra) the
criminal case can be filed even though there are civil disputes
between the parties. In the present case, the allegations
leveled against the petitioners are that they played fraud in
the Government Departments and managed the Officers
therein and created forged documents. Further, they beat
respondent No.2, therefore, it cannot be said that allegations
leads to only civil dispute.
18. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that initially, the case was transferred from one
Police Station to another Police Station without obtaining
permission from the Court concerned. On going through the
said contention, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.B.
Sourabhan (supra), an higher Officer can appoint an officer to
conduct further investigation in a fair and unbiased manner
quoting Section 36 of Cr.P.C., therefore, there is no illegality in
handing over the investigation to the Inspector of Police,
Mughalpura. Therefore, there is no force in the contentions
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
SKS,J
Crl.P.Nos.2849 & 2852 of 2022
19. Further, as seen from the record, petitioners trespassed
into the subject premises and beat respondent No.2 and his
brother, as a result, they sustained injuries and later, they
forged the documents to grab the subject property. Therefore,
the allegations leveled against the petitioners are serious in
nature and at this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations
against them are vague and baseless.
20. In view of the above discussion and as per the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore stated
judgments, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal
petitions to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and
the same are liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 12.07.2024
SAI
