Koneru Veerabadra Rao vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2059 Tel

Telangana High Court

Koneru Veerabadra Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2024

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.4037 of 2022

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners,

who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the

proceedings against them in C.C.No.373 of 2021, on the file

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulugu, registered

for the offences under Sections 120(b), 464, 471, 420 read

with Section 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the first petitioner has

taken land to an extent of Acs.20.00 Gts., on lease from

four individuals viz., Sri Bontala Iylaiah, Sri Kanneboina

Kattaiah, Sri Immadi Kattaiah and Sri Jeela Chandraiah,

who were all holding lands in Sy.No.60/2 situated at

Mallampally Village, Mulugu Mandal, they having been

assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 Gts., each in the year 1991.

Thereafter, on an application made by petitioner No.1, a

mining lease for the mineral "Laterite" was granted by

the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.100,

Industries and Commerce (Mines-II) Department, dated

02.04.1998 over the said extent of Acs. 20.00 Gts.

A lease deed was executed by the Assistant Director,

Mines & Geology Department on 04.09.1998 in the year

1998 and the first petitioner was carrying on mining

operations from the year 1998 till 2004. Some Maoists had

targeted the first petitioner and blasted the vehicles

carrying mined mineral. Subsequently, the lease was

extended up to the year 2019 and during the year 2004,

one Sri Pindi Ravi has instituted a suit seeking permanent

injunction against the petitioners herein vide O.S.No.553 of

2004, on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil

Judge (FTC), Warangal contending that himself and his

wife were the actual owners of the said extent of Acs. 20.00

Gts., having purchased the same by way of simple sale

deeds and he was granted interim injunction based on the

said sale deeds.

3. These petitioners made a complaint against the said

Sri Pindi Ravi vide Crime No.16 of 2011 stating that he

forged and created documents said to have been executed

by persons who are no longer alive and the said Pindi Ravi

also filed complaint on 02.04.2012 vide FIR No.49 of 2012

stating that the death certificates issued by the Tahasildar

were forged and that the petitioners herein have filed a

criminal complaint against him on the basis of such forged

documents. The police after verification stated that it is a

counterblast to the case in Crime No.16 of 2011 filed by the

petitioners and that the allegations against the petitioners

are exaggerated and false. Later, the police filed final

report on 13.06.2013 in FIR No.49 of 2012 closing the

same. On the instigation of one Pindi Ravi, the de facto

complainant filed a complaint with identical allegations as

made by the said Pindi Ravi that the petitioners herein

have conspired with the Officers of the Tahasildar office

and created forged death certificates by wrongly showing

the dates of death. The petition filed under Section 200

Cr.P.C by the 3rd respondent before the Judicial Magistrate

of the First Class, Mulugu leading to registration of

F.I.R.No.62 of 2015 and on comparison with the complaint

which lead to registration of FIR No.49 of 2012 would

clearly establish that the very same death certificates of the

above named persons viz., Sri Kanneboina Kattaiah,

Sri Jeela Chandraiah and Emmadi Kattaiah are once again

complained to be forged by the petitioners. It is further

submitted that once the competent officers have conducted

investigation with respect to the three death certificates

that was the subject matter of the complaint in FIR No.49

of 2012 dated 02.04.2012 and once they have come to a

conclusion that the allegations are false, it is no longer

open to the 2nd respondent to register the very same

complaint, just because the complainant has changed and

continuing the prosecution amounts to double jeopardy.

It is further submitted that the petitioners were targeted by

two groups of individuals i.e., one Sri M.Malla Reddy and

Sri Pindi Ravi. Several cases have been instituted on the

file of this Court, apart from various complaints against

each other before various police stations and Courts below

as well. It is further submitted that the orders in writ

petitions and writ appeals show that the subject land is

Government land over which the first petitioner has been

granted mining lease. If that being so, the claim of the de

facto complainant which has been at the instigation of

Sri Pindi Ravi pales into insignificance, as the very basis of

their claim that Sri Pindi Ravi had purchased the lands

from assignees have been invalidated by the Collector.

As such, the FIR and charge sheet both deserves to be

quashed.

4. Heard Sri Sivaraju Srinivas, learned counsel for

the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State

and Sri K.Mohan, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

earlier also with the same set of allegations FIR was

registered was against the petitioners and the said FIR was

closed after thorough enquiry and again with the same

allegations, the FIR in the present case is registered

and the same amounts to double jeopardy. He would

further submit that the subject property for which

mining is granted belongs to the Government and the same

was stated by the Collector. Therefore, the proceedings in

C.C. No.373 of 2021 are liable to be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents

would submit that there are serious allegations against the

petitioners and previously, two complaints were given and

they were not investigated properly. As such, he prayed the

Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions and upon perusal

of the material available on record, the averments in the

charge sheet shows that there is tampering of the original

official records i.e., Maranamula Register by inserting the

names of deceased (i) Kanneboina Kattaiah, (ii) Jeela

Chandraiah and (iii) Immadi Kattaiah and changing the

serial numbers of the said register which are in possession

and custody of accused Nos.4 and 5 and further their

enquiry shows that the deceased Sri Immadi Kattaiah

and Sri Jeela Chandraiah had taken an amount of

Rs.150/- each per month as old aged pension by putting

their thumb impression prior to their death up to the year

2002 and that the Tahasildar issued report regarding the

actual date of death of the deceased Sri I. Kattaiah,

Sri J. Chandraiah and Sri Immadi Kattaiah for the

year 2002-2003 by verifying the Maranamula Register

and examining the blood relatives of the above

deceased by visiting Gollawada of Mallampally Village.

The Tahasildar, Mulugu has enquired into the matter in

Gollawada, Mallampally Village on 16.04.2016 and

obtained sworn statement of the closed relatives of the

deceased persons and as per the deposition, certificates of

death were issued by the Panchayath Secretary, Mulugu,

which appear to be correct. As per enquiry and as per the

certificates of death issued by the Panchayath Secretary,

Mallampally, Sri Kanneboina Kataiah died on 20.03.2002,

Sri Chandraiah died on 15.06.2003 and Sri Immadi

Kattaiah died on 20.03.2022. They also tallied with the

signatures of Sri Chintham Odelu, VAO with reference to

pay bill register, whereas the Panchayath Secretary of

Mallampall Village has issued the death certificates as

above and these petitioners along with accused Nos.4

and 5 created document stating that Sri Immadi Kattaiah

said to have died on 23.11.1999, Sri Jeela Chandraiah died

on 27.11.1999 and Sri Kanneboina Kattaiah on

31.12.1999. Therefore, the same appear to be tampered by

way of subsequent inclusions. Further, contention of the

petitioners is that with same allegations previously F.I.R

registered and closed by the Police, the petitioner cannot be

tried for the same allegations which amounts to double

jeopardy whereas record shows that he was not tried for

the same allegations previously double jeopardy applies

only when petitioner tried for the same offence for second

time, as such there is no force in the said contention.

8. Having regard to the averments in the charge sheet

wherein serious allegations are levelled against these

petitioners and in view of the fact that the earlier FIR is

closed is not a ground to quash the proceedings and the

same does not comes under jeopardy and allegations

requires trial.

9. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh

vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held

as follows:

"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

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

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."

10. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the

criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the

petitioners and the same is liable to be dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this

Criminal Petition shall also stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE K. SUJANA Date: 06.06.2024 ktm