Telangana High Court
Santi Nambaiah vs The State Of Ap., on 15 December, 2021
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12824 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him in Crime No.175 of 2011 on the file of Peddapally Police Station, Karimnagar District registered for the offence under Section 468 and 420 IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent - complainant lodged a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapally, alleging that her mother late Nuguri Thirumalamma was the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.605, 606/1 and 600 admeasuring Acs.3.05 gts, Acs.1.03 gts., and Acs.4.04 gts., respectively, situated at Christian Colony (named as Chander Kaka Nagar) of Peddapalli Town and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Subsequently, the said lands were converted into house plots and had been allotted with individual plot numbers. During the lifetime of her mother, she sold away some of the plots to various individuals and they were put in possession and they had constructed their own houses with the permission of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Her mother executed a General Power of Attorney deed bearing document No.29 of 1986 dated 07.05.1986 on the file of Sub-Registrar, Peddapalli in favour of her husband Sri N. Ramachander Rao as she was unable to handle the transactions against her lands on becoming old. Her husband and her mother both died leaving her behind as their sole Dr.GRR,J 2 Crl.P.No.12824 of 2013 legal heir and she had succeeded to the said lands from them. Due to her old age, she was staying with her daughters at Hyderabad. Taking advantage of her old age and her absence, the accused created bogus and sham simple sale deed dated 17.02.1994 as if her husband had executed a sale deed in his favour for the land to an extent of 410 sq. yds., in Sy.Nos.605 (Plot Nos.65 and 66) and that he advanced an amount of Rs.35,000/-. On the backside of the non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.100/-, it was again mentioned that he paid an amount of Rs.65,000/- to her husband. She perused the entire record of her husband along with the original signatures on related documents. The signatures on the said document were not tallying with the said simple sale deed. Basing on the fake bogus and forged document, the accused obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat authorities for construction of house therein. Accordingly, he was allotted with a door number. Thus, the accused even cheated the Gram Panchayat authorities with the said document and it ought to be registered as per the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1998. The said private complaint was referred to the police and the same was registered as Crime No.175 of 2011.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an employee, working as School Assistant (Social) at Dr.GRR,J 3 Crl.P.No.12824 of 2013 Z.P.H.S., Peddapally. The husband of the 2nd respondent Sri N. Ramachander Rao, during his lifetime sold the house plots bearing Plot Nos.65 and 66 in Sy.No.605 and executed a simple sale deed dated 17.02.1994 and the 2nd respondent was well aware of the execution of the said document. The possession of the said plots were also delivered in favour of the petitioner on the date of execution of the simple sale deed dated 17.02.1994 itself. In the recent past, the value of the lands within the vicinity had abnormally escalated. The 2nd respondent with a malafide intention to grab the said plots after the death of her husband filed the present complaint with false and frivolous allegations. The sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 17.02.1994, but the complaint was filed after a lapse of 17 years on 07.07.2011. The genuinity of the signatures contained on the simple sale deed dated 17.02.1994 could be established only after the said document was sent to the hand writing expert to compare with that of the admitted signatures of the late husband of 2nd respondent. Without doing so, the learned Magistrate has simply referred the complaint to the police. The allegations in the complaint, even after they were taken on their face value, would not constitute the alleged offence and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - complainant, on the other hand, contended that the document could be referred to the hand writing expert only if the investigation was allowed to be continued Dr.GRR,J 4 Crl.P.No.12824 of 2013 and prayed to permit the Investigating Agency to complete the investigation.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor also requested the Court to permit the investigating agency to complete the investigation so that the truth could be known.
7. Perused the record. The 2nd respondent was alleging that the petitioner had fabricated the signatures of her husband and created the simple sale deed and the same was not executed by her husband. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations can be decided only if the investigation is completed and the document is sent to the hand writing expert. As the complaint was disclosing prima facie allegations about the forgery and cheating and the truth of it can be known only after full-fledged trial, it is considered fit to dismiss the petition.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J December 15, 2021.
KTL