Telangana High Court
S Mir Akbar Ali Khan vs The State Of Telangana, on 25 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6047 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and
6 in C.C.No.3708 of 2022 on the file of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences
punishable under sections 464 and 420 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for short 'I.P.C').
2. Breif facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto
complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners and
other accused alleging that the father of respondent No.2 died
on 05.07.2020 and during his life time he acquired the property,
admeasuring 200 square yards, bearing Municipal No.18-1-
514/8/1/A, situated at Ahmed Colony, Chandrayan Gutta,
Hyderabad, through registered gift deed bearing document
No.6987 of 2006, dated 18.12.2006, excuted by the mother of
respondent No.2, which she acquired through inheritance from
her ancestors. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 is
having six brothers, including him and after demise of his
father, himself and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 started living separately
SKS,J
and they have not taken all house hold utensils along with
them. They have kept some of the said utensils in their
respective rooms in the house and locked them and left to the
rented houses. That being so, respondent No.2 came to know
through the real estate agents that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are
selling their joint owned property.
3. Later, when respondent No.2, other sisters and other
brothers approached petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 for partition of the
house, they changed their attitude towards respondent No.2
and other family members. Thereafter, they enquired with Sub-
Registrar and came to know that petitioner Nos.1 to 3, accused
No.4 and mother of respondent No.2 created a flase document of
partition deed in collusion with each other and got partitioned
the property of their late father without informing respondent
No.2 and other family members on 30.09.2021, vide document
No.6823 of 2021. Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 have active role in
creating the said false partition deed and are witnesses to the
said document.
4. Basing on the said complaint the Police registered a case
in Crime No. 135 of 2022 and after completion of investigation,
they filed Charge Sheet before the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Hyderabad.
SKS,J
5. Heard Smt. S. Madhavi, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent
No.1 state.
6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the matter
is civil in nature, as respondent No.2 filed civil suit vide
O.S.No.4363 of 2021 for partition, separate possession and for
cancellation of partition deed, which was already executed by
petitioenr Nos.1 to 3 and their mother and the same is pending
before the Court below. By suppressing the said fact, with the
same set of facts, as alleged in the suit, respondent No.2 filed
the present complaint. He further submitted that there is no
iota of truth to prove the allegations against the petitioners. He
further submitted that as a counter blast respondent No.2 filed
the present case, as he was unable to face the trial in the said
suit. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioners do
not constitute any offence, as such, prayed the Court to quash
the proceedings against them.
7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioners are
serious in nature which requires trial and prayed the Court to
SKS,J
dismiss the petition and consequently, to direct the trial Court
to dispose of the matter as the matter pertains to the year 2022.
8. 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 any offence, as
alleged against the accused persons, then the proceedings
against the accused are liable to be quashed.
9. Furthermore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1,
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
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
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 the present case, it is to be noted that the allegations
leveled against the petitioners are under Sections 464 and 420
of I.P.C. It is further noted that there are civil disputes between
the petitioners and respondent No.2. The prime contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.2
filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.4363 of 2021 and as he was unable
to face the trial, to settle the civil scores, he filed the present
criminal case with false allegations. According to respondent
No.2, the petitioners created the false documents stating that
they are the only legal heirs of the deceased father i.e., the
petitioners and mother of respondent No.2.
11. A perusal of the record reveals that with the same set of
facts respondent No.2 filed the civil suit. The allegation leveled
against the petitioners is that they have taken the legal heir
certificate excluding respondent No.2 and this fact is also
agitated in O.S.No.4363 of 2021. When the matter is pending
before the Civil Court, he has to prove that the said document is
SKS,J
forged document. Further, there is no bar to file a criminal case
pending civil suit. Hence, the allegations leveled against the
petitioner requires trial, therefore, the proceedings against him
cannot be quashed and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. In view of the above discussion and as per 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 petitioner
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 25.06.2024
SAI
