Telangana High Court
C. Madhukar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 July, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No.3000 OF 2013
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in Cr.No.261 of 2012 of Kanchanbagh Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections.419, 420, 468 and 471, 109 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and perused the material on record.
3. The second respondent filed a private complaint before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally against the petitioner and (12) others alleging that the father of the second respondent namely Late S.Janga Reddy is the pattadar and owner of land in survey No.18 of Sulthanvula, Champapet (v), Hyderabad and the said land was converted into plots. Out of them, the petitioner/A-1 purchased plot bearing No.1 in the said survey number from the father of the second respondent under registered document bearing No.8706 of 1980, dated 11.09.1980. It is further alleged that the petitioner impersonated the second respondent 2 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 and his mother and thereby got registered a rectification deed bearing No.7169 of 2009 on 11.09.2002 with the assistance of other accused, as if he purchased plot No.38 and not that of Plot No.1 in survey No.18 of Sulthanvula, Champapet village through document bearing No.8706 of 1980, dated 11.09.1980. Thereby, the petitioner and others committed the aforesaid offences. The complaint was referred to Station House Officer, Kanchanbagh Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.261 of 2012 for the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent filed a false complaint against the petitioner and others as counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner on 17.10.2012 before the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad against the second and respondent and his builder and the said complaint was registered in Cr.No.254 of 2012.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner obtained permission from the LB Nagar Municipality for the subject property and even the father of the petitioner has also executed an agreement for change of plot No.1 which was purchased 3 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 by him to that of Plot No.38 and since the father of the petitioner and his coparceners have failed to execute the necessary conveyances incorporating the corrections, the petitioner had even filed O.S.No.126 of 1985 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Hyderabad and the same was decreed on 02.05.1986. Subsequently, when the authorities of municipality were interfering with the construction, he also filed O.S.No.189 of 1985 and which was also decreed on 14.08.1991.
6. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the allegations of the complaint, prima facie, satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offence and make out cognizable offences. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits the allegations of the complaint make out prima facie ingredients for the offences alleged and opposed the petition.
8. A perusal of the allegations of the complaint would reveal that the petitioner/A-1 purchased plot under registered sale deed, dated 11.09.1980, from the father of the second respondent. The father of the second respondent died on 21.03.1987. As on that day the age of second respondent was five years. His date of birth is 4 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 28.11.1982. It is alleged that the petitioner intended to grab plot No.38 and created a false document bearing No.7169 of 2002, dated 1.09.2002 styled it as rectification deed. The recitals of the said document discloses that by virtue of rectification deed, the recitals in document executed by the father of the second respondent, dated 11.09.1980, has been rectified. By virtue of said document, the petitioner has become the owner of plot No.38 instead of plot No.1 and gave for development. The said document shows that the mother of the second respondent has executed said rectification deed and A-2 and A-3 are the attesting witnesses to the rectification deed and it also shows that it was rectified as per the orders of the Court in O.S.No.189 of 1985, dated 05.02.1985. But in the complaint it is alleged that neither he nor his mother has executed any kind of document in favour of the petitioner and the thumb impressions and the signatures therein were forged. The land in the plot No.38 was given for development under registered document, dated 04.06.2002, which shows that A-4 is the builder/developer and A-5 to A-13 are the residents of said building. The petitioner also filed another certified of the registered document No.8170 of 2006 dated 5 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 13.04.2006 and the said document shows that A-12 alleged to have purchased Plot No.38 from the petitioner.
9. It is the claim of the petitioner that during the life time of father of the second respondent, his father executed agreement dated 22.06.1982 for change of plot No.1 to that of plot No.38 and when they failed to execute the necessary conveyance, he filed suit in O.S.No.126 of 1985 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Hyderabad and the same was decreed on 02.05.1986. A perusal of the copy of decree in O.S.No.126 of 1985 shows that the said suit was filed for perpetual Injunction in respect of plot No.1 altered to Plot No.38 measuring 504 square yards. Admittedly, the suit was not filed for rectification of plot number which was filed for injunction in respect of plot No.38. However, the alleged rectification deed through which plot number was rectified from plot No.1 to plot No.38 allegedly executed by the mother of the second respondent.
10. It is the case of the complainant that the rectification deed is false and fabricated and the petitioner/A1 purchased plot No.1 and by fabrication of forged document has got it corrected as plot No.38. He also alleged that two persons falsely represented themselves as the mother of the second respondent and the second respondent before 6 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 the Registrar, Champapet and executed said rectification deed in favour of the petitioner to which A-2 and A-3 are the attesting witnesses. It appears from the allegations that the second respondent was aged five years, when the registered document was executed by his father in favour of petitioner/A-1 in respect of plot No.1 and his father died on 21.03.1987. The rectification deed is dated 11.09.2002. These allegations are prima facie of civil in nature for the reason that if at all the second respondent has disputed his signature and signature of his mother on rectification deed, it is for him to approach the civil Court and file civil suit for declaration that rectification deed is null and void, as the signatures are forged. Then the Civil Court would decide the issue whether the rectification deed is signed by the second respondent and his mother or some other persons forged their signatures. In the absence of the same, the allegation that the rectification deed is false, fabricated and forged document is not tenable and would not prima facie, constitute the said offences.
11. Going by the allegations of the complaint would reveal that the alleged rectification deed was dated.11.09.2002 and the complaint was lodged on 11.12.2012 after more than ten years alleging that the said document is a forged document. Further more, the first petitioner 7 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 lodged complaint on 23.11.2012 against the second respondent herein, whereas the present complaint was filed on 11.12.2012. It appears as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a counter blast to the case filed against the second respondent and other accused, the present complaint is lodged only to harass the petitioner/A-1 and other accused. Apart from that, another document was executed for development of the said land and constructed the building and the document was registered on 04.06.2022. Unfortunately, the persons who are residing in the said building are also implicated as A-5 to A-13, though there is no fault on their part in the alleged transaction.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in V.Y. JOSE AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER1 held as follows:
"Section 482 serves a salutary purpose that a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years although no case has been made out against him. A matter which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence, the latter being a short cut of executing a decree which is non-existent. The superior courts, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of court. They have a duty in terms of Sections 483 to supervise functioning of the trial Courts."
1 (2009)3 SCC 78 8 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013
13. Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the allegations made against the petitioner clearly make out that the matter is essentially of civil in nature and is given a cloak of criminal offence and the present complaint is filed as a counter case against the petitioner/A-1 also cannot be ruled out.
14. In the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the conclusion is inescapable that invoking of jurisdiction of criminal Court by the second respondent would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 to avoid the abuse of process of law.
15. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 in crime No.261 of 2012 of Kanchanbagh Police Station, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY,J 20.07.2022 Nvl 9 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013 10 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013