Telangana High Court
Gadari Luther vs State Of Telangana on 7 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3086 OF 2018
ORDER:
The petitioners/A3 to A5 are seeking quashment of C.C.No.232 of 2013 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the following lines:
3. Accused No.1, when he was working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies (Enforcement) in the office of the District Civil Supply Office, Ranga Reddy, has obtained pink ration card bearing No.PAP 167666500142 on his name. The ration card can be used for multiple purposes like proof of residence for taking passport, for opening bank account, for obtaining driving licence and for getting documents registered etc.
4. A1, who is having supervisory control over generation and distribution of ration cards and who is expected to see that true and correct ration cards are given after giving proper addresses etc., himself has filed a wrong declaration concealing the facts 2 in violation of clause 4(2) of the A.P. State Public Distribution System Control Order, 2008 and instigated his wife/A2 to take another ration card for the family. On his instigation, A2 has given false declaration about the address and family members and obtained another ration card. If any one of the particulars mentioned in the declaration for obtaining the ration card are found to be false, criminal action as envisaged under Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act.
5. The fact of A2 had obtained another ration card in her name in addition to the ration card, which was given to A1, came to light when A2 has signed a registered lease deed bearing No.733 of 2007 executed on 18.10.2007 before the Sub-Registrar, Quuthbullahpur. The signature on the ration card is not tallied with the signature attested on the lease deed on 18.10.2007. The signature attested on the lease deed dated 18.10.2007 was in Telugu, whereas the signature on the ration card filed by A2 was in English. Thereby, it was realized that A2 fraudulently, dishonestly, intentionally and in contravention of the rules of the Essential Commodities Act, obtained the ration card by giving fake residential address.
3
6. The de-facto complainant has filed the complaint before the Court under Section 200 Cr.P.C., stating that the accused has committed offence under Sections 24, 25, 34, 35, 120B, 199, 406, 465 of IPC read with Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. The said complaint was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate and on receipt of the same, the police have registered a case in Crime No.159 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 24, 25, 34, 35, 120B, 199, 406, 465 of IPC read with Section 9 of the Essential Commodities Act. During the course of investigation, police have recorded the statements of the de-facto complainant, who is also working in the civil supplies department, and also recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 9, who are the officials. Finally, charge sheet is filed against A1 and A2.
7. In addition to the charge sheet filed by the police against A1 and A2, police have also filed additional charge sheet against A3 to A5 stating that police have already filed charge sheet on 01.12.2012 against A1 and A2 and during the course of further investigation, the Sub-Registrar of Quthbullahpur (LW.5) has stated that A2 and A3 and another person by name Srinivasulu (who is not traceable) have executed a lease deed 4 bearing document No.733 of 2007 in favour of A4. The Deputy Commissioner of GHMC, Quthbullahpur circle has stated that the address i.e. door number etc., furnished by A3 is not found in the records. LW.8 is the original owner of plot No.G106 in Sy.No.329/9 and 329/7 at Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullahpur. However, A2 and A3 in collusion with A4 and A5 have fraudulently executed a lease deed against the property belonging to LW.8 and committed fraud. LW.8 has stated that she never made any transaction with the accused at any point of time in respect of her property.
8. It is mentioned in the additional charge sheet that LW.9 is the original owner of G108 in plot No.329/10 of Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullahpur Mandal. A2 and A3 in collusion with A4 and A5 have fraudulently executed a lease deed in respect of the property belonging to LW.9 and committed fraud. According to LW.9, he never made any transaction with the accused at any point of time in respect of his property.
9. It is also mentioned in the additional charge sheet that A3 in collusion with A5 has executed lease deed in favour of A4 leasing out plots G106, G107, G108 and G109 admeasuring 5 200 square yards each for which A3 used a bogus ration card bearing No.PAP 1588297C0260 issued in the name of M. Damodar S/o. Tukaram. A3 has affixed his photograph against the name of Damodar while executing the lease deed and forged the signature as if he himself is Damodar thereby committed fraud.
10. It is further mentioned in the charge sheet that A3 is originally having ration card bearing No.PAP 1588105D0053 in which his name is mentioned as Gadari Luther, S/o. G. Benjimin, R/o. D.No.32-167, L.B. Nagar, Shahpur Nagar, Quthbullahpur, R.R. District. This card contains the signature of A1 as G. Luther. A3, who has fraudulently created lease deed in favour of A4 belonging to LWs.8 and 9 has produced a false residential address before the Sub-Registrar, Quthbullahpur, mentioning his residential address as Door No.13-49/2, Sudharshan Reddy Nagar, Chintal, Ward No.3, Quthbullahpur District. According to the statement of LW.7, the Deputy Commissioner, GHME, Quthbullahpur, the door number mentioned by A3 is not existing.
6
11. The investigation of police further revealed that A3 and A5 are having close personal relations with each other. A3 and A5 and one Srinivasulu (not traceable) even though they are not the owners of the plots, designed an evil plan to grab the land belonging to LWs.8 and 9 have executed registered lease deeds bearing No.733 of 2007 in favour of A4, who is the son of A5. A5, who is one of the witnesses, in the lease deed is the father of A4 and employee of A3. A1 being the officer of the civil supplies department conspired with A5, who is fair price shop dealer and kerosene dealer, in his jurisdiction and created lease deed on the property belonging to LWs.8 and 9. A5, in turn, arranged his assistants working in his shop i.e., A3 and one Srinivasulu and arranged false deed in favour of his son/A4 and committed fraud. A3 is working as assistant in the fair price shop of A5, acted as M. Damodar by registering the lease deed and affixed A3 photograph and executed lease deed in favour of A4, thereby both the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 120B of IPC.
12. On filing the additional charge sheet, the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has taken 7 cognizance for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120 IPC against the petitioners/A3 to A5. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed for quashment on the following grounds:
13. As per the original complaint, there is no grievance by the de-facto complainant against the petitioners/A3 to A5 and the case between the de-facto complainant and A1 and A2 have already been settled amicably outside the Court.
14. Originally, on a complaint filed by the de-facto complainant a case was registered against A1 and A2, who are husband and wife, alleging that apart from taking a ration card in the name of A1, on the instigation of A1, who was working as Deputy Tahsildar, Civil Supplies (Enforcement), A2 his wife has also taken another ration card bearing No.PAP 1588116A0163 and charge sheet was filed against A1 and A2 only on a complaint given by the de-facto complainant and subsequently, it is reported that the dispute between the de-facto complainant and A1 and A2 was settled out side the Court amicably and the case was closed.
8
15. In the meanwhile, the Inspector of Police has continued the investigation in the same crime i.e., Crime No.159 of 2012 and filed additional charge sheet against the petitioners by showing them as A3 to A5. Now it is reported that the de-facto complainant has no objection in case if the petition is allowed. No compromise petition is filed in the Court seeking recording of compromise by the de-facto complainant and the petitioners/A3 to A5. Even otherwise, the question would be whether the de-facto complainant can enter into compromise with the petitioners/A3 to A5 or whether the de-facto complainant can report that he has no objection to allow the petition filed by A3 to A5 and to quash C.C.No.232 of 2013 against them.
16. On perusal of the charge sheet filed against A3 to A5, who are the petitioners herein, in the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., there is no grievance against the petitioners/A3 to A5. The de-facto complainant has not alleged anything against the petitioners/A3 to A5 herein. .
17. During the course of investigation by the police, in respect of A1 and A2, the police have realized that A3 to A5 were also 9 committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC. Even though the de- facto complainant has no grievance against A3 to A5, the charge sheet filed against them cannot be quashed summarily, on the ground that there is no complainant. The criminal law can set into motion by anybody even a person who is not at all connected to the offence, as all the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable in nature. When it comes to the notice that a cognizable offence has been committed and the said cognizable offence shall be investigated into, tried into, so that truth or otherwise of the allegations of the charges levelled against the petitioners can be revealed in the trial Court.
18. The police investigation has revealed that A2 and A3 along with one Srinivasulu, whose whereabouts is not known, have executed certain lease deeds in favour of A4 fraudulently by giving the fake address and by using fake ration cards. As per the statement of LW.7, the Deputy Commissioner of GHME, Quthbullahpur, the address shown by A3 was not found in the record. The said address was found in the ration card, which A3 has taken fraudulently in collusion with A1, who was in charge of giving of ration cards. LW.8 is the original owner of 10 Plot No.G106 situated in Sy.No.329/9 and 329/7 at Gajularamaram Village. Similarly, LW.9 is the owner of Plot No.G108 situated in Sy.No.329/9 and 329/7 of the Gajularamaram village. In respect of these plots, without knowledge, without authority, without any authorization from LWs.8 and 9, A2 and A3 in collusion with one Srinivasulu have executed registered lease deeds in favour of A4. A5 is the dealer of the fair price shop and A4 is working as weigh man. A3 in collusion with A5 has executed lease deeds in favour of A4 in respect of properties i.e., G106, G107, G108 and G109 each to the extent of 200 square yards by using bogus ration cards.
19. Police investigation also revealed that A3 has used the ration card issued in the name of one Damodar and affixed the photograph of A3 and he has also signed on the document as if one Damodar is executing the lease deed. Police have also gathered the original ration card standing in the name of A3 with his photograph and signature. It is also unearthed in the investigation by the police that A3 being the weigh man of A5 has been very active in all the transactions initiated by A5 and attested all the documents. Police have collected information 11 that A3 has signed as many as 6 documents as witness belonging to A5.
20. Therefore, considering the investigation done by the police, there is abundant evidence pointing out in favour of the petitioners that they have forged the documents by using fictitious ration cards created and came into existence with the help of A1 and executed lease deeds in respect of the properties belonging to LWs.8, 9 and others. When such strong evidence is available before the Court, merely on the ground that the de- facto complainant has no objection or no grievance against the petitioners asking the Court to quash the case against the petitioners is not tenable.
21. In order to quash a criminal case against the petitioners, the petitioners are expected to show that even if all the contents of the complaint or the charge sheet are accepted to be true, there shall not be any case against them. In the case on hand, as discussed above, entire charge sheet denotes specifically mentioned role played by each of the accused by taking fake ration cards in collusion with A1. Therefore, when such is the strong evidence pointing out that the petitioners have 12 committed offence of forgery and using the said documents as original and other connected offences, this Court cannot quash the C.C.No.232 of 2013 against the petitioners.
22. 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;
(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 1 1992 AIR 604 13 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."
On perusal of the allegations alleged against the petitioners, there is strong prima facie case against the accused. hence, none of the illustrations mentioned above will come to the rescue of the petitioners.
23. In view of the discussion made above, and basing on the rationale laid down by the authorities cited above, considering the fact that there is strong and prima facie evidence against the petitioners in the form of charge sheet, statement of witnesses and documents collected by the police, the case registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed.
24. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 07.09.2022 ES