Telangana High Court
B. Rajyalakshmi vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4225 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 273 of 2017 pending on the file of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offences under Sections 426, 464, 465, 467, 468, 419 and 420 IPC. The petitioner is accused in the said crime.
2. Heard Sri M.V. Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent - State. There was no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent on 15.02.2022, 02.03.2022, 09.03.2022 and 14.03.2022.
3. Perusal of the record would reveal that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Miyapur, Cyberabad, and the learned Magistrate has referred the same to the Police, Miyapur Police Station, who in turn, registered the above said crime for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein.
2
4. As per the said complaint, the allegations against the petitioner herein are that the complainant along with her husband late B.Balakrishna, are the absolute owners and possessors of open plots bearing Nos. 920/A and 920/B admeasuring 389 sq.yards, forming part of Sy.No.44/1 situated at the Matrusri Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Hyderabad in Miyapur. Her husband purchased the open plot No.920/A admeasuring 200sq.yards in Sy.No.44/1 from V.Seshu Rani represented by her General Power of Attorney Holder Smt. P.Laxmi, vide registered document bearing No.1596 of 1998. Her husband worked as Attender in Archeology and Museums Department in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. He has also obtained loan by way of mortgaging the said property through a registered mortgage deed bearing document No.2386 of 1998 in respect of plot No.920/A. With regard to the Plot No.920/B admeasuring 189 sq. yards, it was purchased by the 2nd respondent by way of a registered sale deed bearing document No.1597 of 1998. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property as absolute owners. Her husband passed away in 2010. Her husband name was shown in the Encumbrance Certificate (EC) all through.
3
5. On 05.08.2018, when 2nd respondent wanted to construct a house, she has applied for Encumbrance Certificate and found the name of the petitioner herein in the EC and also in document No.4590 of 1999 which is a forged document. Even in the GPA said to have been executed in favour of one K.Sreenivasa Reddy, by the 2nd respondent and her husband, their signatures were forged. In fact, they never executed any such GPA. When the 2nd respondent and her son visited the site on 14.08.2015, they were threatened by the henchmen of the petitioner herein. Then she approached the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station thrice on 14.08.2015, 16.08.2015, and 20.08.2015 but they have not received her complaint and registered it. Therefore, she has filed the above said complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Thus, according to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has created the above said sale deeds and GPA, in collusion with the said K.Srinivasa Reddy, by forging her signature and also the signature of her husband.
6. Sri M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent and her husband have executed a registered agreement of sale - cum - GPA bearing document Nos.6363/1998 dated 18.08.1998 and Document No.4166/99, dated 4 18.06.1999 in favour of K. Sreenivasa Reddy, in respect of the above said open plots Nos.920/A and B. Thereafter, the petitioner herein had purchased the subject property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.9590/1998, dated 07.07.1999 from said K.Sreenivasa Reddy, the GPA holder of the 2nd respondent and her husband. According to him, the petitioner is in possession of the subject property and she is having original documents including link documents with her. In view of the said submissions, this Court vide order dated 02.03.2022 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce original agreement of sale/GPA No.6363 of 1998, dated 18.08.1998 and also sale deed bearing No.4590 of 1999 dated 07.07.1999. In compliance of the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner on 09.03.2022 had produced the said original sale deeds bearing document Nos.1596/1998, 1597/98 both dated 10.03.1998, registered agreement of sale/GPA No.6363/98, dated 18.08.1998 and also sale deed bearing No.4590 of 1999 dated 07.07.1999. On perusal of the said originals, the same were returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The said facts would reveal that originally Smt. V.Sheshu Rani, was the owner of the subject property. She has executed GPA in favour of Smt. P.Laxmi. Thereafter, Smt. P.Laxmi sold the subject property to 5 the 2nd respondent and her husband under two registered sale deeds bearing document No.1596 of 1998 and 1597 of 1998 both dated 10.03.1998. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent and her husband have sold the subject property through K. Srinivasa Reddy, GPA holder of the 2nd respondent and her husband, under registered agreements of sale - cum
- G.P.A. bearing document Nos.6363/1998, dated 18.08.1998 and 4166/1999, dated 18.06.1999, to the petitioner. The said K. Srinivasa Reddy had sold the subject property to the petitioner herein under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4590/1998. The petitioner herein is having custody of the above said original documents. She has produced the said documents on 09.03.2022 before the Court. It is relevant to note that even then the 2nd respondent is claiming that the said K. Srinivasa Reddy has created the said GPAs by forging her signature and also the signature of her husband. There is no answer with the 2nd respondent with regard to possession of the original documents including link documents by the petitioner herein.
8. In the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the 2nd respondent states that she came to know about the said G.P.A. on 05.08.2015 and also the registered sale deed No.4590 of 1999 executed by the said K. Srinivasa Reddy, in favour of the petitioner herein. 6 According to her, she along with her son went to the site on 14.08.2015. She has filed the present complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. only on 01.09.2016. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation by the 2nd respondent with regard to the abnormal delay in filing the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thus, the contents of the complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. The continuation of proceedings in Cr.No.273 of 2017 is an abuse of process of law. The present case squarely falls within the parameters laid down by the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal1, for exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same are extracted herein:-
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 7 same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. It is relevant to note that this Court vide order dated 18.03.2018 in Crl.P.No.2662 of 2018 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein considering the delay in lodging the complaint and also considering the fact that the petitioner herein is in custody of the original documents including link documents. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the agreements of sale 8
- cum - G.P.A. bearing document Nos.6363/1998, dated 18.08.1998 and 4166/1999, dated 18.06.1999 are forged cannot be accepted.
10. In view of the above discussion and parameters, the proceedings in the subject crime cannot go on against the petitioner herein and the same are liable to be quashed.
11. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Cr. No. 273 of 2017 pending on the file of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioner herein are quashed.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:6th June, 2022 vvr