Telangana High Court
Dr.Ratnam V. Mullapudi Another vs The State Of Telangana Another on 25 July, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4815 OF 2017
ORDER:
Heard Mr. S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Duvva Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Crime No.509 of 2016 of Jagathgirigutta Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.
3. The petitioners herein are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the aforesaid Crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.
4. As per the complaint dated 21.10.2016, the allegations levelled against the petitioners and other accused are as follows:
i) Respondent No.2 claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0-24 guntas, forming part of Survey No.222, situated at Gajula Ramaram Village, Quthubullapur 2 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.2818 of 2003, dated 05.03.2003.
ii) After purchase, he had fenced the said land with barbed wire.
iii) During his recent visits, he found that the police of the barbed wire fence were removed and a stranger objected his entry into the subject land.
iv) On inquiry, he came to know that the said land was purchased by Usha Mullapudi Hospital and others. He further came to know that accused No.1 impersonating as K.S.N. Raju executed an Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney vide document No.5611 of 1998, dated 12.10.1998 along with rectification deed No.6776 of 2002, dated 21.08.2022 in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in Survey No.222 of Gajula Ramaram Village in favour of Dr. Tatineni K.M. Chatarji, who is none other than his brother by creating a fictitious and fraudulent transaction alleging conveyance and appointing Vendee as his Agent.
v) The said Dr. T.K.M. Chatarji based on the forged document executed by his own brother knowing fully well that his brother did 3 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 not have any right over the land had executed registered sale deeds in April, 1999 in favour of Mr. Koduri Arjun and others.
vi) Accused No.1 apart from executing the aforesaid AGPA, had also executed some sale deeds in favour of Kum. Jyothi Mullapudi and the petitioners herein for an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas in the same survey number.
vii) The scheme of petitioner No.1 herein and accused No.2 at whose behest accused No.1 was acting under their guidance affixed his photographs against the name of one Mr. K.S.N. Raju, forged the documents for the purpose of cheating the real owners, used the forged documents as genuine and they are in possession of the said documents knowing fully well that they are forged.
viii) Thus, the petitioners herein and other accused have committed the aforesaid offences.
5. Mr. S. Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners and their daughter had purchased the land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Survey No.222 of Gajula Ramaram Village of Quthbullapur Mandal, vide registered sale deed bearing Nos.5380 of 1998, 5381 of 1998, 5382 of 1998 and 5383 of 4 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 1998, all dated 28.09.1998 from Mr. K.S.N. Raju and they are bona fide purchasers.
i) He would further submit that the petitioners herein have constructed hospital in the name and style 'Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre' in the year 2016. When the vendor of respondent No.2 and others interfered with the possession of the petitioners and 2 others over the subject land, they have filed a suit vide O.S. No.612 of 1999 seeking perpetual injunction. The same was decreed on 23.10.2006.
Feeling aggrieved by the same, defendant No.3 therein had preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.296 of 2006 and the same was dismissed on 31.06.2014.
ii) He would further submit that one Mr. G. Hari Babu, defendant No.3 in the said suit and his wife, had filed a complaint under Section - 200 of the Cr.P.C. and the same was referred to Jeedimetla Police Station under Section - 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. who in turn registered a case in Crime No.440 of 2014 against the petitioners herein and others for the offences under Sections - 416, 419, 417, 441, 447, 503 and 506 of IPC. The petitioners herein and two others have filed a petition under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. vide 5 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 Crl.P. No.9690 of 2015 before this Court to quash the proceedings in the said Crime, and this Court had granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioners herein and 2 others. The said petition is pending and the interim stay is subsisting. Accused No.1 in the said crime had also filed a petition under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P. No.6384 of 2015 to quash the proceedings in the said Crime, and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 07.11.2015 quashing the proceedings in the said crime.
iii) He would further submit that the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. The allegation of forgery and cheating etc., are only against accused No.1. Therefore, according to him, registration of the present crime against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. The registered sale deed bearing document No.2818 of 2003, dated 05.03.2003 under which respondent No.2 herein claims to have purchased the subject land and that he came to know that accused No.1 impersonating as K.S.N. Raju executed an Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney vide document No.5611 of 1998, dated 12.10.1998 along with rectification deed No.6776 of 2002 in 6 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 respect of the subject land, but he has not challenged the said documents by filing a suit or other proceedings.
iv) With the aforesaid submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid Crime.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Duvva Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would submit that accused No.1 had filed a writ petition vide W.P. No.40047 of 2016 to declare the action of respondent No.3 in registering the present crime as illegal. The same was disposed of vide order dated 21.11.2016 directing the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and file a final report, if any, either way in accordance with law, without arresting accused No.1. Thus, this Court declined to quash the proceedings in the subject crime. There are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, scuttling investigation at the threshold is not warranted. A suit vide O.S. No.82 of 2018 was filed by respondent No.2 against Mr. K.S.N. Raju and others for declaration and perpetual injunction. The said suit is pending. On the complaint lodged by one Mr. Mohammad Jawad Hussain Madani, Jagadgirigutta 7 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 Police Station have registered a case in Crime No.589 of 2017 against the petitioners herein and others for the offences under Sections - 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioners herein and others for the said offences, and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.6108 of 2021. In the said charge sheet, there are specific allegations of impersonation and cheating against accused No.1 herein. The petitioners herein have filed Crl.P. No.116 of 2022 to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. and the same is pending.
i) With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 sought to dismiss the present petition.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is pending. There are several factual aspects to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. All the said aspects cannot be considered in a petition filed under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C and, therefore, he sought to dismiss the present petition.
8. The above said facts would reveal that both the petitioners herein and 2 others are claiming that they are the absolute owners and 8 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.4.00 guntas in Survey No.222 of Gajula Ramaram Village. Whereas, respondent No.2 herein claims that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.24 guntas in the very same survey number on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document No.2818 of 2003, dated 05.03.2003 executed by one Mr. Ramayanam China Guru Murthy S/o Chinnayya represented by his registered GPA Holder Mr. N. Appa Rao S/o late Nagabhushanam vide AGPA-cum-GPA document bearing No.1730 of 1999, dated 29.10.1998. It is relevant to note that the subsequently, the said General Power of Attorney was revoked vide revocation of GPA document bearing No.27 of 1999, dated 14.07.1999. Respondent No.2 herein has not taken any steps to challenge the said revocation of GPA. Therefore, the said revocation of deed is in force as on today. Unless and until the said revocation deed is cancelled or declared as null and void, respondent No.2 cannot claim any right and possession over the above said land to an extent of Ac.0-24 guntas.
9. It is also relevant to note that the petitioners herein are claiming that they are the purchasers of an extent of Acs.4.00 guntas of land having purchased the same from one Mr. K.S.N. Raju, 9 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 whereas, respondent No.2 had purchased the land from Mr. Ramayanam China Guru Murthy. The petitioners herein and others have filed a suit vide O.S. No.612 of 1999 against the Vendor of respondent No.2 and others for perpetual injunction, and the said suit was decreed on 23.10.2006 on merits. In the said judgment, there is specific finding that the petitioners herein and others are absolute owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Acs.4.00 guntas in Survey No.222 of Gajula Ramaram Village. In the appeal filed by defendant No.3 vide A.S. No.296 of 2006 was also dismissed on 13.06.2014. Thus, all the said facts would reveal that the petitioners herein and others are in possession of the above property. According to them, they have already constructed the hospital in the year 2016 itself and the structures are there.
10. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.2 herein claims that he had purchased an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas of the land on 05.03.2003. According to him, when he visited the site in the month of October, 2016, he found the constructions and objected his entry into the subject land, then he lodged the subject complaint on 21.10.2016. Thus, there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint. 10
KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017
11. As stated above, in the complaint dated 21.10.2016, the allegation of forgery, cheating and impersonation etc., are only against accused No.1. The only allegation against the petitioners herein is with regard to trespass. Respondent No.2 herein failed to produce any document to show that he is in possession of the subject property. On the other hand, the sale deed bearing document No.2818 of 2003, dated 05.03.2003 was not valid by virtue of the revocation of the said General Power of Attorney vide revocation of GPA document bearing No.27 of 1999, dated 14.07.1999. Without challenging the said revocation deed, respondent No.2 cannot claim that he is the absolute owner of the subject land. Further, the petitioners herein have filed documents to show that they are in possession of the subject property. There is decree in their favour which was confirmed by the appellate Court.
12. As stated above, there is an interim stay of arrest of the petitioners herein and 2 others in Crime No.440 of 2014 registered at the instance of one Mr. G. Hari Babu, defendant No.3 in O.S. No.612 of 1999 vide order dated 06.10.2015 in Crl.P. No.9690 of 2015. Accused No.1 in the said crime had also filed a petition under Section 11 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017
- 482 of the Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P. No.6384 of 2015 to quash the proceedings in the said Crime, and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 07.11.2015 quashing the proceedings in the said crime. The said Mr. G. Hari Babu claims that he is the owner of the entire land in Survey No.222. However, the said contention was not accepted by the Court below in the judgment dated 23.10.2006 in O.S. No.612 of 1999 and as confirmed by the appellate Court in A.S. No.296 of 2006.
13. It is also relevant to note that though respondent No.2 had filed a suit vide O.S. No.82 of 2018 to declare that he is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.0-24 guntas in Survey No.222 of Gajula Ramaram Village, but he has not made the petitioners herein as defendants to the said suit. The said fact would reveal that the petitioners never interfered with the alleged possession of respondent No.2 herein. The said suit is pending. There is no interim injunction. Further, the proceedings in C.C. No.6108 of 2021 are pending against the petitioners at the instance of Mr. Mohammad Jawad Hussain Madani. The said proceedings are nothing to do with the present criminal petition. They are separate proceedings. However, the 12 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 petitioners herein have filed a petition vide Crl.P. No.116 of 2022 under Section - 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. and the same is pending. Thus, according to this Court, the contentions of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. Continuation of the said proceedings against the petitioners herein is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.509 of 2016 cannot go on against the petitioners herein and the same are liable to be quashed. This particular case squarely falls in one of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1. Even in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra2 the Apex Court held that if the contents of the complaint, prima facie, lack the ingredients of a particular offence, proceedings in the crime cannot go on.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in Crime No.509 of 2016 of Jagathgirigutta Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.3 and 4. 1 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 2 . AIR 2021 SC 1918 13 KL, J Crl.P. No.4815 of 2017 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 25th July, 2022 Mgr