Telangana High Court
V.Murali Krishna vs Sri M.Yadi Reddy State Of Telangana, Rep ... on 19 September, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6503 of 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused No.1 to quash C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, the cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts in brief as can be seen from the charge sheet are as under:
a) Respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint before the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri alleging that grandfather of respondent No.1-de-facto complainant by name Manda Raghava Reddy was the protected tenant of lands in Sy.No.630 admeasuring Ac.12.06 guntas of Yapral village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, suddenly the names of Dokuri Rami Reddy (accused No.4), Dokuri Malla Reddy (accused No.3), Dokuri Ravinder Reddy (accused No.2) appeared 2 in the revenue records without any proceedings from the revenue department. The de-facto complainant started enquiring as to how the names of accused Nos.2 to 4 were entered in the revenue record. On that an attempt was made against him. On the complaint of de-facto complainant a case was registered for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Police, Alwal, Secunderabad vide Crime No.278 of 2000, which was numbered as C.C.No.12913/2000 and the same was also disposed of in the year 2005.
b) Aggrieved by the illegal entries in revenue records, the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has initiated proceedings before MRO, Keesara for succession of the tenancy, eviction and ffor delivery of possession. Accordingly, the MRO has issued proceedings No.B/785/2001, dated 04.07.2001 declaring succession in favour of de-facto complainant in respect of lands in Sy.No.630 to an extent of Ac.12.06 guntas.
c) A public notice in Telugu daily newspaper was published on 19.03.2022 that V.Murali Krishna (accused No.1) i.e., the petitioner herein and others have agreed to purchase the land belonging to the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant from Dokuri Ravinder Reddy and others and called for objections, if 3 any. The de-facto complainant has replied on 26.03.2002 through his counsel by enclosing copy of the succession granted by MRO vide Proceedings B/785/2001, dated 04.07.2001 and the said reply was also given to the counsel of accused.
Further, no correspondence took place in respect of correctness of the MRO proceedings. However, even after recording the objection of the de-facto complainant, the petitioner-accused No.1 has purchased the land from accused Nos.2 and 3 and other family members through registered AGP bearing No.5090/2002 dated 25.09.2022. In the said document also there is no mention about the MRO Proceedings of succession in favour of the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant.
d) The de-facto complainant has filed W.P.No.9262 of 2002 for implementation of orders passed by the MRO vide proceedings No.B/785/2001 and interim orders were passed in the said writ petition restraining alienation of the lands. At the time of filing Writ Petition, de-facto complainant has signed several blank papers. Surprisingly the de-facto complainant came to know that the said Writ Petition was withdrawn. The de-facto complainant came know about the same, when he filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003 against accused Nos.1 to 3 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal, 4 wherein the de-facto complainant has filed copy of an affidavit allegedly filed by him before the High Court showing that he has received Rs.5,00,000/- from accused No.1, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was through cheque and thereby the accused have withdrawn the writ Petition No.9262 of 2002. Though the signature in the said affidavit belongs to respondent No.1-de- facto complainant, the signature on the revenue stamp does not belong to him. Fraudulent documents were filed before the High Court and without consent and knowledge of respondent No.1-de-facto complainant, the writ petition was got dismissed.
e) In the document filed before the High Court, it is mentioned that grandfather of respondent No.1-de-facto complainant as grandfather of accused Nos.2 to 4. In fact, grandfather of accused Nos.2 and 3 is one Venkat Reddy but not Raghava Reddy. It is mentioned further that in the partition among the accused dated 19.05.1993, the land in dispute in Sy. No.630 is not shown. In order to cheat the de-facto complainant, the documents are created and filed before the High court and before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Medchal.
f) When the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has questioned his counsel, he gave evasive reply. The proceedings 5 of MRO dated 04.07.2001 and review orders dated 10.04.2022 were also manipulated by the petitioner and other accused including MRO. The respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has applied for copy of the MRO orders dated 04.07.2001 under RTI and on receiving the copy, vide File No.A/RTI/2605/2014 and on perusal of the copy and also revenue order which was marked as Ex.B9 before the Junior Civil Judge at Medchal, it is found that one para was added in the order copy, which was not found in original order. The de-facto complainant has also sought for extract of the proceedings No.B/2807/2001 in respect of review of the order of MRO for which also another memo dated 10.07.2015 was got issued stating that the said file is not available. It is mentioned that MRO in collusion with accused have removed the original order and prepared the revenue order and handed over to accused Nos.1 to 3.
g) If at all there was withdrawal before the High Court, the proceedings in C.C.No.1661 of 2005 initiated by accused No.1 against the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant and his family members would have been withdrawn and further criminal complaint in C.C.No.1913/2000 initiated by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant before the Alwal Police Station against accused Nos.2 and 3 was very much in 6 existence and after trial, the case was disposed of in the year 2005 and during the course of cross examination and complaint on 05.04.2004 also there is no mention about the alleged compromise with accused No.1 or receipt of amount from the accused No.1.
h) Based on the said complaint given by respondent No.1-de- facto complainant, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.790 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 198, 468, 471, 474, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the statement of respondent No.1-de-facto complainant was recorded, received Photostat copies of the MRO proceedings bearing No.B/785/2001 dated 04.07.2001 and forged documents, proceedings of MRO filed by the accused in civil cases. A notice was issued to MRO by name G.Subba Rao and having gone through the documents filed by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant, the MRO stated that he has issued proceedings B/785/2001, dated 07.04.2001, however, he has denied the signature on the review orders and that the signatures do not belong to him and they were created by way of forging the same. The Inspector has also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal to furnish a copy of proceedings No.B/785/2001 dated 10.04.2022, which is in 7 dispute and MRO has furnished copy of the same and he has also obtained copy of the orders of Ex.B9 submitted by accused No.1 in O.S.No.65 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, wherein accused No.1 herein has filed forged documents and accordingly the said suit was closed.
i) The investigating officer has recorded the statement of other witnesses and filed charge sheet alleging that accused Nos.1 to 12 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused No.1 has filed the present criminal petition to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri on the following grounds:
I) The respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has no interest over the said property in Sy.No.630 admeasuring Ac.12.06 guntas of Yapral village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District. When the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant was trying to encroach the land, he has filed a complaint before Kushaiguda Police Station on 20.09.2015 vide Crime No.674 of 2015 for the 8 offence under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is still pending. II) The MRO (LW4) himself has filed a complaint against the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No.214 of 2002 and the same is still pending.
III) The proceedings mentioned by the respondent No.1-de-
facto complainant are nothing to do with this case. The allegations against the petitioners are vague. IV) The respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has filed W.P.No.9262 of 2002 and withdrawn.
V) The petitioner - accused No.1 herein is bondafide purchaser and thus, he cannot be roped in a criminal case and therefore, sought for quash of the proceedings against him.
4. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.1 in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
9
5. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and Sri M.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 has submitted that the accused Nos.5 to 12 in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 have filed a Criminal Petition No.6214 of 2019 seeking quash of the proceedings against them by making the de-facto complainant as respondent No.3 and having considered the same, this Court has quashed the case against them. It is further submitted that basing on the finding in the said order, the petitioner is also required to be given benefit and thus, case against him is sought to be quashed. It is to be noted that the originally the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.1 is the purchaser and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the vendors, who have sold the property to accused No.1 through AGP, whereas accused No.4 is the MRO, who has given a statement that his signature is forged in some of the proceedings. Perhaps considering the statement of MRO that he has issued original proceedings in B/785/2001 and denied his signature in 10 subsequent review orders and other proceedings, the said MRO is shown as witness No.4 and deleted from the array of the accused. The Inspector of Police, during the course of investigation has found that not only accused Nos.1 to 3 but accused Nos.5 to 12 are also involved in this case and thus, they were also made as accused to the case. Hence, in the original complaint, there was no allegation about the role of accused Nos.5 to 15 and thereby they have taken advantage of the same and filed Criminal Petition No.6214 of 2019 and thus, the case against them was quashed.
7. In any case, the facts seeking quashment of the case against the petitioner and seeking quashment of the case against accused Nos.5 to 12 are totally different. Therefore, merely because, case against accused Nos.5 to 12 is quashed, that cannot be a ground to quash case against the petitioner- accused No.1.
8. As seen from the record, serious allegations are made against the petitioner by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant from the inception of proceedings No.B/785/2001. According to the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant, originally the land to an extent of Ac.12.06 guntas in Sy.No.630 11 of Alwal Village belongs to his grandfather by name Raghava Reddy, who was registered as protected tenant, from whom, the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has succeeded the said property. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 got their names included in respect of the said property suddenly in the revenue records, on which, an objection was filed by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant before the MRO and thereby the MRO (LW4) has issued proceedings No.B/785/2001 stating that respondent No.1-de-facto complainant is the successor of Raghava Reddy, who was protected tenant and issued succession of the tenancy vide Proceedings No.B/785/2001. It is also mentioned in the said proceedings that accused Nos.2 and 3 are not grandchildren of Raghava Reddy as their grandfather is one Venkat Reddy. It is also the case of respondent No.1-de-facto complainant that he has filed W.P.No.9262 of 2002 for a direction to implement orders passed by the MRO in Proceedings No.B/785/2001 and also filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003 against accused Nos.1 to 3 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal and in both the proceedings, the basic document is proceedings No.B/785/2001 issued by the MRO. According to respondent No.1-de-facto complainant, in order to get over the MRO proceedings, the 12 accused have colluded with MRO and created a false proceedings as if the proceedings of MRO were reviewed by him and issued other proceedings No.B/2807/2001 contrary to the earlier proceedings No.B/785/2001. Based on the said review proceedings, the accused managed to get the suit as well as writ petition dismissed.
9. It is alleged by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant that the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 colluded with MRO and created number of forged documents in order to cause loss and get the property of the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant. Aggrieved by the review orders, the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has taken up the proceedings under Tenancy Act and it is stated that the tenancy appeal was also dismissed and Writ Petition is filed before the High Court and the same is pending.
10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent purchaser and he is nothing to do with whatever proceedings filed by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant and the complaint filed by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant before the Police is belated one. It is to be noted that the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has specifically 13 mentioned that when the petitioner-accused No.1 has issued notification stating that he is intending to purchase the land in Sy.No.630 belonging to the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant alleging that the said belongs to accused Nos.2 and 3 and another, the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has issued reply that the land belongs to him and enclose the proceedings of the MRO vide No.B/785/2001 and after receiving the said proceedings, accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3 won over MRO (LW4) and created false and forged documents in the forum of revision. Basing on the said revision got the landed property. Therefore, there are clear allegations against the petitioner. According to the respondent No.1-de- facto complainant, the petitioner is the prime accused, who is responsible for alleged forgery of the documents of MRO proceedings. Therefore, when there are such serious allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot say that he is innocent purchaser.
11. In fact, the statement of the MRO as LW4 is very clear that signature of original proceedings in B/785/2001 belonging to him but he has not signed in other proceedings subsequently and all the documents are created. Therefore, when MRO, whose statement was recorded that he is not responsible and 14 that he has not issued any proceedings including review orders and the Police having investigated the same, found that accused Nos.1 to 3 and others are responsible for the same and when there is clear prima-facie material before the Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he is an innocent purchaser.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others1, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines are:
"(a) 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
1
1992 AIR 604 15
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (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 the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) 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."
13. In view of the principle laid down above said authority and in view of the facts and circumstances, since there is prima- facie material against the petitioner-accused No.1 and as there are many factual issues to be tried by the trial Court after full- fledged trial, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in this case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District.
16
14. Accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall proceed with C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District on merits of the case uninfluenced by the observations and comments made by this Court in this order.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 19.09.2022 AS