Telangana High Court
Syed Imtiaz Raza Abidi vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 6 July, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8055 OF 2019
ORDER:
The petitioner/A1 in Crime No.58 of 2019 has filed this petition seeking quashment of FIR.No.133 of 2019, which is registered against him and other accused for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 120(b) IPC by C.C.S. Hyderabad.
2. The facts in brief are that the de-facto complainant and his cousin brothers Syed Wasi Mustafa Hasan and Ibrahim Mustafa Hasan are joint owners and lawful possessors of several properties at Fathepur, Lucknow, Allahabad and other parts of Uttar Pradesh. One Syed Imtiaz Raza Abidi, who came to know about their properties, has hatched a plan to grab the said properties. Accordingly, he along with one Basharat and Shaimi Warsi, the proprietors of Shamim Varsi Enterprise, with common intention have conspired and created forged election IDs in the names of the de-facto complainant and his cousin brothers, Syed Wasi Mustafa Hasan and Ibrahim Mustafa Hasan. With the help of those IDs, got executed a registered 2 GPA by impersonation vide document No.77/2017/V at SRO Charminar, Hyderabad, in respect of the properties belonging to the de-facto complainant at Uttar Pradesh, as if the de-facto complainant and his brothers have executed the said GPA.
3. On coming to know about the same, the de-facto complainant and his cousin brothers approached the Sub- Registrar Office, Charminar, Hyderabad and obtained the copy of the fraudulent GPA. As per the contents of the GPA, one Syed Imtiaz Raza Abidi was permitted to enter into the transactions in respect of the properties belonging to the de- facto complainant in Uttar Pradesh. On verification of photo pasted on GPA, it is found that the photo is not the photo of the de-facto complainant, but is of the petitioner/A1. Neither the de-facto complainant nor his cousin have executed the GPA bearing No.77 of 2017/V. The said Syed Imtiaz Raza Abidi and Basharat on the basis of created GPA No.77/2017/V have transferred the properties of the de-facto complainant in favour of Shaimi Warsi, proprietor of Shamim Varsi Enterprises.
4. The de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before the police by enclosing the GPA and other document on which 3 police, Mirchowk, have registered a case in Crime No.58 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 read with 120(b) IPC and subsequently, the said case was transferred to CCA, Hyderabad and took up investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the advice of the elders and well-wishers, the petitioner/A1 and other accused have compromised the disputes with respondent Nos.2 to 4 and executed settlement deed dated 27.09.2019 and MOU. It is submitted that basing on the settlement deed and MOU, there is no grievance for the de-facto complainant against the petitioner/A1 and other accused and therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No.133 of 2019 can be quashed?
8. The basic ground on which the petitioner is seeking quashment of FIR No.133 of 2019 is that after registration of 4 the FIR, the de-facto complainant and the petitioner and others have settled the dispute among themselves and entered into compromise/settlement deed, wherein it is mentioned that they have compounded the alleged offences by way of compromise and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no grievance against the petitioner and others, and that respondent Nos.2 to 4 will not pursue the criminal case in Crime No.133 of 2019 and that they will not file any case in future in connection with the registered GPA bearing No.77/2017/V.
9. As per the FIR, the allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused are very serious in nature. According to which, the petitioner/A1 and other accused have created a GPA bearing No.77/2017/V by way of forgery by impersonating the de-facto complainant through which Syed Imtiyaz Raza Abadi was given power to transfer the properties belonging to the de-facto complainants in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, on the basis of the allegations levelled in the complaint, it cannot be said that there is no material against the petitioner/A1 and other accused to proceed. 5
10. The main ground on which the petitioner is harping upon is that subsequent to the registration of FIR, there is a settlement between the petitioner and other accused on one hand and the de-facto complainants on the other hand, wherein the de-facto complainants stated to have agreed to compound the offences registered against the petitioner/A1 and other accused and that they will not pursue the criminal case before the police and they will not file any cases in respect of the GPA alleged to have been executed.
11. At the first place, the petitioner has not filed original of compromise-cum-settlement deed before this Court. The de- facto complainants and the petitioner have not approached this Court with a compromise petition. The very complaint against the petitioner and other accused is that they have impersonated the de-facto complainants. There is no record to show that the photocopy of the compromise-cum-settlement deed is genuine one. Unless the de-facto complainants appears before this Court and submits to the Court that they have voluntarily executed the compromise-cum-settlement deed, the submission of the petitioner cannot be considered.
6
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in Akil Ahmad vs. State of Uttarakhand and others1 and also the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Manjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another2.
13. The decision cited is not applicable to the facts of the case, as in the case cited, the accused and the de-facto complainant were present in the Court. In the case on hand, compromise petition is not filed and the de-facto complainant as well as the accused have not appeared in the Court.
14. Even otherwise, on careful reading of the clauses in the photocopy of the compromise-cum-settlement deed, there is no mention that the de-facto complainants have no objection, in case if Crime No.133 of 2019 is quashed. It is mentioned that they will not pursue the criminal case. In fact, once a complaint is filed before the police, it is the police who will pursue the case and continue the investigation. Even if the de- facto complainants have no interest, the police will complete the investigation and file the final report basing on whatever 1 Compounding application (CLMA 1124/2019) in W.P.(Crl) No.112/2019 2 CRM-M-11939 of 2019 (O&M) dt. 01.05.2019 7 material available before them. Similarly, it is also mentioned in the said compromise-cum-settlement agreement that the de- facto complainants will not file any case in respect of the alleged GPA vide document No.77/2017/IV, dated 09.05.2019 at SRO, Charminar. Therefore, it is a fit case where police can go ahead with the investigation and file the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the above said decisions rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case.
16. Considering from any angle, the petitioner fails to convince this Court to quash the proceedings against him in FIR.No.133 of 2019 on the file of CCS, Hyderabad.
17. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 06.07.2022 ES