Telangana High Court
Sakilam Narsaiah Vijaya Kumar Vijay ... vs The State Of Telangana on 3 May, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12640 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused
No.5 seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in
C.C.No.374 of 2017 on the file of learned VII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal, for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 423, 471 r/w. 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. The facts of the case are that; basing on the private
complaint filed by the respondent No.2, the learned XXI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, wherein the
petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5, Crime No.236 of 2016
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 423, 471 r/w.
34 of I.P.C.
3. The allegations against the petitioner in the charge sheet
is that on 26.08.2017 at about 19:00 hours, the Police received
a court referred petition by the de-facto complainant, wherein
it is mentioned that the de-facto complainant along with LWs
2 and 3 purchased land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in
Sy.No.215/A, Ac.4.09 gts in Sy.No.215/AA, Ac.3.00 gts in
Sy.No.216/A, Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/AA, Ac.4.00 gts in
Sy.No.217, Ac.3.20 gts in Sy.No.217 (total admeasuring
Ac.18.19 gts) situated at Anantharam Village, Shameerpet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from their vendor Lakshmi
Singireddy vide Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.7212 of
2005. Since then, the complainant and LWs 2 and 3 were in
continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands and the
complainant and LWs 2 and 3 names were mutated in the
revenue records and they also got Pattadar Pass Books and
Title Deeds. Originally, the land in Sy.No.215 and 216 belongs
to Akula Ramaiah, Akula Babaiah, Akula Sathaiah and Akula
Narayana and the said property has been partitioned among
them and accordingly the said Akula Ramaiah got Ac.8.10 gts
under sub Sy.No.215/A and Ac.8.10 gts has been fallen to the
Akula Babaiah, Akula Sathaiah, Akula Narayana Branch
under sub-Sy.No.215/B and in Sy.No.216 Ac.3.00 gts were
fallen to the share of Akula Ramaiah under sub Sy.No.216/A
and Akula Babaiah, Sathaiah, Narayana was fallen the
remaining Ac.3.00 gts under sub-Sy.No.216/8 and accordingly
the parties mentioned above were in possession and enjoyment
accordingly.
4. The said Akula Sathaiah i.e., father of accused Nos.1 and
2 got agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in
Sy.No.215/B, and Ac.1-00 gts in Sy.No.216/B, situated at
Antharam Village and Gram Panchayat, Shameerpet Mandal,
R.R. District, and the above said Akula Sathaiah sold the
above said land i.e., land admeasuring Ac.2.30 gts in
Sy.No.215/B and Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/B to the vendor of
the complainant herein i.e., Manthena Sathyanarayana Raju
under Registered Sale Deed bearing doc.No.2050 of 1982 and
the said Manthena Sathyanarayana Raju sold the above
property to Singireddy Laxmi under Registered Sale Deed
bearing doc.No.2959 of 2001, dated 04.06.2001. In turn, the
said Singireddy Laxmi sold to LWs 1 to 3 vide doc.No.7212 of
2005, dated 03.10.2005. The complainant further submit that
the above said Akula Babaiah got land admeasuring Ac.2.30
gts in Sy.No.215/B and Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/B and since
the Akula Babaiah died intestate leaving behind his four
daughters, succeeded the property as his legal heirs and four
daughters sold the land of Ac.2.30 gts in Sy.No.215/B and
Ac.1.00 gts in Sy.No.216/B to Smt. V. Anuradha under a
Registered Sale Deed and in turn Anuradha sold the entire
land to Singireddy Laxmi under Registered Sale Deed bearing
doc.No.7533 of 2003, dated 05.09.2003, in turn the above
Singireddy Laxmi sold the above land to LWs 1 to 3 as they
purchased the land from legal heirs of Akula Narayana. As
such, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not having any land in
Sy.No.215 or 216 and the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and
other family members of Akula Babaiah and Akula Narayana
sold their entire land in the said survey numbers. The LWs 1
to 3 became absolute owners and possessors of entire land
and their names are also mutated in the revenue records and
also obtained pattedar pass books. Even after knowing the fact
that the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 sold away the land,
accused Nos.1 and 2 in collusion with accused Nos.3 to 5
brought into existence of sale deed bearing document.No.2840
of 2006, dated 20.02.2006; document No.1392 of 2016, dated
13.05.2016; and document No.1861 of 2016, dated
24.05.2016, in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.3.15 gts in
Sy.No.38/P (Ac.0.02 gts), 40/AA (Ac.0.03 gts). 215/AA
(Ac.2.30 gts), 216/AA 9Ac.0.20 gts), situated at Ananthram
Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District, only by showing
false consideration in order to cause wrongful loss to the
complainant and LWs 2 and 3 and in order to create false
litigation in respect of the above said land in collusion with
accused No.5 who worked as VRO of Antharam Village,
incorporated the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 in the pahani
patrika for the year 2006 of village and created pattedar pass
book and title deeds in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2,
though accused Nos.1 and 2 sold away the property during
their life time.
5. Basing on the same, police registered a case in Crime
No.236 of 2016 under Sections 420, 423, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC.
Challenging the same, the petitioner-accused No.5 has filed
the present criminal petition.
6. As per the investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 were
colluded with Accused No.5/Vijay Kumar, prepared pass books
and title deeds in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 admeasuring
Ac.4.30 gts, instead of Ac.1.00 gts by adding additional extent
of Ac.3.30 gts in Sy.No.215/AA and also accused No.5 entered
the name in 1-B Namuna register of Anantharam Village and
also helped accused Nos.1 and 2 to give pattedar pass books
and title deeds from MRO Office. As such, accused No.5 is
liable for the offence under Section 420 and 423, 471 r/w 34
of I.P.C.
7. Heard Sri D.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioner as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and
Sri M.S.N.PPrasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No.2.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the allegation made against petitioner/accused No.5 is
that he colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 and none of the
allegations will attract the offences alleged as against
petitioner-accused No.5, as Tahasildar is the competent
person to issue such proceedings. Therefore, the allegation of
petitioner-accused No.5 helping the accused Nos.1 to 3 does
not arise and there is no mistake on the part of the petitioner-
accused No.5 and this petitioner has only complied the orders
of Tahasildar and, as such, the learned counsel prayed the
Court to quash the proceedings against petitioner-accused
No.5.
9. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor would submit that petitioner/accused No.5 helped
the accused Nos.1 and 3 in mutating the record and also to get
the pass books knowingly, that the said property was already
sold away. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
10. Having regard to the rival submissions and material
available on record, it is noted that the allegations levelled
against the petitioner-accused No.5 are that he incorporated
the name of the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the pahani patrika for
the year 2006 of village and created Pattadar Pass Book and
Title Deeds in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2, though the
father of accused Nos.1 and 2 sold his entire land during his
lifetime only. Further, with a malafide intention, it is shown as
the excess land in the pahani and helped to get the pass book
and created false document in the name of accused Nos.1 and
2 belonging to the de-facto complainant, whereas, the
contention of counsel for the petitioner is that, he is no way
related to disputes between the parties and he has only
discharged his official duties as a public servant, when public
servant proceed, it requires previous sanction from the
Government for which petitioner counsel further relied on
paras-59 and 60 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
A. Sreenivasa Reddy Vs. Rakesh Sharma 1 which reads as
under:
59. "Thus, although in the present case, the appellant
has been discharged from the offences punishable under
the PC Act, 1988 yet for IPC offences, he can be proceeded
further in accordance with law."
60. "From the aforesaid, it can be said that there can be
no thumb rule that in a prosecution before the Court of
Special Judge, the previous sanction under Section 19 of
the PC Act, 1988 would invariably be the only
prerequisite. If the offences on the charge of which, the
public servant is expected to be put on trial include the
offences other than those punishable under the PC Act,
1988 that is to say under the general law (i.e., IPC), the
Court is bound to examine, at the time of cognizance and
also, if necessary, at subsequent stages (as the case
progresses ) as to whether there is a necessity of sanction
under Section 197 Cr.P.C."
11. Further, since the petitioner is a Government servant,
the Court cannot take cognizance without obtaining sanction
from the concerned authorities under Section 197 of Cr.P.C.
In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5
also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab 2 that sanction is necessary
(2023) 9 Supreme Court Cases 711
(2008) 9 SCC 140
for the public servant and, as such, prayed the Court as there
is no sanction for prosecuting the petitioner-accused No.5,
who is a public servant, the proceedings are liable to be
quashed.
12. The learned Public Prosecutor relied on the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in Md.Allauddin Khan Vs. State of
Bihar and others 3 wherein it is observed that mere pendency
of the civil suit is not in any manner impact whether
ingredients of criminal offence is made out against the
petitioner and also observed that High Court has no
jurisdiction to proceed the evidence of proceedings under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C and, as such, prayed the Court to
dismiss the petition.
13. In view of the submissions made by both the parties,
though there are serious allegations against this petitioner,
and while discharging the duties, the petitioner-accused No.5
has colluded with the accused for the mutation proceedings,
whereas, the VRO is not the authority for mutation of
proceedings and the MRO is the competent authority for the
same. Therefore, the allegations against VRO are against the
AIR 2019 (SC) 1910
procedure in Revenue Department. Therefore, the allegations
are baseless. The Hon'ble Apex Court at para No.36 of its
judgment in Amod Kumar Kanth Vs. Association of victim
of Uphaar Tragedy and Another, 4 "the Magistrate erred in
the facts of this case in taking cognizance against the
appellant contrary to the mandate of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
On the short ground alone, the appellant succeeds."
14. As the allegations are baseless and sanction also not
obtained, the criminal petition is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner-accused No.5 in
C.C.No.374 of 2017 on the file of learned VII Metropolitan
Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 03.05.2024
ds
2023 SCC Online SC 578
