Telangana High Court
Yenugula Satyanarayana Reddy 5 Ors. vs The State Of Telangana Another on 17 October, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3779 of 2016
ORDER:
This petition is filed by A1 and A5 to A9 seeking quashment of charge sheet in C.C.No.828 of 2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The facts in brief as can be seen from the record are that the de-facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court stating that originally father of the de-facto complainant by name K. Rajgopal has purchased land admeasuring Ac.8.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.702, 703, 704, 706 and 707 of Gundlapochampally Village from previous owners Laxmi Reddy and others from 02.09.1956 under registered sale deed and from the said date the said Rajgopal has been in possession and enjoyment of the land. In the year 1979, the said Rajgopal has mortgage the land to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Dulapally and borrowed the loan and subsequently, the said Rajgopal has cleared the loan in the year 1983. On 18.02.1992, the said Rajgopal passed away. It is also alleged in the complaint by the de-facto complainant that during the life time the said Rajgopal has not executed any document in favour of anybody alienating the said property of Ac.8.36 guntas. In the 2 month of April, 2013 when the de-facto complainant and his family members approached the Tahsildar for getting their names mutated in the revenue records, they found that A1 to A11 their names are incorporated in respect of Ac.8.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.702, 703, 704, 706 and 707 of Gundlapochampally village. According to the de-facto complainant the accused persons have forged and created the documents impersonating the said K. Rajgopal and created the documents and therefore, sought the Court to take cognizance of the offence.
3. The said complaint was referred to the police of Pet Basheerabad, Cyberabad and the police have registered the same as FIR in Crime No.351 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 120 B IPC. After completion of infestation the police have filed a final report stating that the complaint is being closed as civil in nature. A notice has been given to the de-facto complainant on which a protest petition is filed under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and the statements of the de-facto complainant and some other witnesses were filed before the Court and after considering the same, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and after considering the same, the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and other accused.
3
4. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed seeking quashment on the following grounds.
5. Petitioner No.1 has purchased land to an extent of Ac.8.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.702, 703, 704, 706 and 707 of Gundlapochampally village by registered sale deed from K.Rajgopal vide document No.2568 of 1980 dated 10.11.1980. It is stated that in the year 1975-76 the said Rajgopal then then original owner has borrowed loan from the cooperative society and created a charge. When the said Rajgopal was in need of money , he approached petitioner No.1/A1 and requested to advance money in order to discharge the loan to the cooperative bank and also expressed that he would sell the land to petitioner No.1/A1 for a sum of Rs.48,000/-. Petitioner No.1/A1 has paid Rs.20,000/- as an advance to Rajgopal on 29.09.1980 with which he has cleared the loan of Cooperative society Bank and obtained No Due Certificate on 13.10.1980. Subsequently, the petitioner No.1/A1 has paid the balance sale consideration before the Sub-Registrar, Medchal on which the said K. Rajgopal has executed a registered sale deed vide document No.2568 of 1980 dated 10.11.1980.
6. The de-facto complainant is having the knowledge of the transaction and since the date of purchase, the de-facto 4 complainant and his family members kept quite and after lapse of 12 years, the issue has been raised on the false grounds. It is also submitted that A5 to A9 were not even borne as on the date of transaction of purchase of the property by A1 on 10.11.1980 and there are no ingredients of all the offences against them and therefore sought for quashemnt of the criminal case.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.828 of 2015 against the petitioners can be quashed?
9. It is submitted during the course of arguments that out of the six petitioners herein, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., A1 and A5 passed away during the pendency of the petition and they are no longer and therefore case against A1 and A5 has to be dismissed as abated. The rest of the accused are A6 to A9 who are shown as petitioner Nos.3 to 6.
10. There is no dispute originally the land belongs to K.Rajgopal, who has purchased the same on 02.09.1956 from his previous owner Laxma Reddy and others in Sy.Nos.702, 703, 704, 706 and 707 of Gundlapochampally village to an extent of Ac.8.36 guntas. There is also no dispute that K. Rajgopal has 5 availed loan from Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Dulapally by mortgaging the said land. According to the de-facto complainant the said Rajgopal has discharged the same amount in the year 1983 and he has not executed any document alienating the property to anybody including petitioner No.1/A1 and the document through which petitioner No.1/A1 stated to have been purchased from K. Rajgopal is created by way of forgery and therefore sought for taking action against the petitioners.
11. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de-facto complainant's father K.Rajgopal sold the property for a valid sale consideration under registered sale deed bearing No.2568 of 1980 on 10.11.1980 and thereby all the allegations against the petitioners are false.
12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed additional documents. Once of the document is copy of the letter of SHO, Pet Basheerabad Police Station dated 20.11.2014 requesting the learned Magistrate to address a letter to SRO, Medchal directing him to send the document No.299/1979, Book No.1, Volume No.204, Page No.367, dated 15.02.1979, document No.2568/1980, Book No.1, Volume No.274, Pages No.147 to 151, dated 11.11.1980 to send 6 the same to forensic science laboratory for comparing the signatures and thumb impression of Rajgopal. Accordingly, the learned XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad has sent those documents to the hand writing experts. It is to be noted that according to the de-facto complainant the document bearing No.2568 of 1980 dated 10.11.1980 is the document is created by way of forgery by the petitioners. The forensic science laboratory after analysing the signature and thumb mark on the disputed document has addressed a letter to the learned Magistrate dated 22.04.2019 giving the opinion as under:
"The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S1 to S8 also wrote the red enclosed signatures marked Q1 to Q19."
Therefore, the disputed signature on document No.2568 of 1980 dated 10.11.1980 is tallied with the admitted signature of Rajgopal. Therefore, on perusal of the FSL report, it is clear that the father of the de-facto complainant Rajgopal himself has executed the document in favour of petitioner No.1/A1. Therefore, when the father of the de-facto complainant himself has executed the document, then whole contention of the de- facto complainant that the petitioners have created the document by way of forgery cannot be accepted. 7
13. Even otherwise, according to the de-facto complainant, his father Rajgopal died on 18.02.1992. Normally, after the death of the father the de-facto complainant and his family members takes possession of the land and continue to cultivate the land and most of the time, they would see that the legal heirs of the Rajgopal incorporated or mutated in respect of Sy.Nos.702, 703, 704, 706 and 707 of Gundlapochampally village to an extent of Ac.8.36 guntas.
14. In the case on hand, according to the petitioners, during the life time of Rajgopal, they have purchased the land on 10.11.1980 itself. Therefore, 12 years prior to the death of Rajgopal, the land was taken into possession by the petitioners. So 12 years prior to the death of Rajgopal and 13 years subsequently until April, 2013 in all so many years, the de-facto complainant has not taken any steps in respect of the said land. According to the documents filed by the petitioners the pattadar passbooks and other documents were given in favour of the petitioners and the names of the petitioners have been incorporated in the revenue records. If really the de-facto complainant and his family members are legal heirs, they should continue to possess and cultivate the land and in case if other names are there, they must agitate and according to the de-facto 8 complainant in April, 2013 he realized that the names of the petitioners were incorporated without any reason and thereby a complaint is filed before the Court under various provisions of IPC. Therefore, the conduct of the de-facto complainant and family members for keeping quite for more than 20 years and suddenly filing a complaint that his father's signature was forged is not at all convincing.
15. Even if the names of the petitioners are falsely incorporated, the de-facto complainant is expected to file a suit in a competent civil Court for cancellation of the registered sale deed which was alleged to have been executed in favour of petitioner No.1/A1. The de-facto complainant has filed the complaint before the police in the year 2015. The de-facto complainant can file a complaint before the police in case if he suspects any forgery by the petitioners. However, even if ultimately the charge sheet is filed, the accused is punished, still the registered sale deed standing in favour of petitioner No.1 dated 10.11.1980 vide document No.2568 of 1980 still hanging in favour of the petitioners. Even if all the petitioners are convicted, unless and until the said document is cancelled by way of competent civil Court, still the petitioners can continue to be the owners of the property in the revenue records. Therefore, 9 the de-facto complainant should have filed a civil suit for cancellation of the said sale deed, but no attempt was made. It clearly go to show that the petitioners are not interested in getting the sale deed cancelled, but interested some how to arm twist the petitioners in order to corner them may be for a purpose of some negotiations with the petitioners. So the conduct of the de-facto complainant non-filing of a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed also speaks volumes in respect of the intention of the de-facto complainant.
16. Even otherwise, it is a case where the land allegedly belonging to the de-facto complainant is in possession of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the father of the de- facto complainant sold the property in their favour, whereas according to the de-facto complainant the document through the petitioners are claiming right is a created one. Therefore, it is a civil dispute between the parties. The civil Court will also decide whether the father of the de-facto complainant has really sold the property in favour of petitioner No.1/A1 or not. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The de- facto complainant has converted the civil dispute into criminal case.
10
17. According to the de-facto complainant, the offence committed on account of creating of a sale deed by petitioner No.1/A1 on 10.11.1980 when the document bearing No.2568 of 1980 was created. Therefore, even if at all there is a grievance, the grievance shall be only against petitioner No.1/A1. In entire complaint no where it is explained as to rest of the petitioners would relate to the allegations made against them.
18. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner Nos.4 to 6/A7 to A9 are aged about 33, 31 and 29 years respectively. They were not even borne as on the date of execution of the alleged forged sale deed. Therefore, when they were not even borne, strangely they were also made parties. In fact, as observed above, if at all any forgery was done, it was done by petitioner No.1/A1 and witnesses to the said document and other connected persons. But, except petitioner No.1/A1, the de-facto complainant did not mention any role played by them in alleged forgery of document. Therefore, when there are no overt acts at all taking cognizance against the other accused merely because their names are incorporated in the revenue records, it cannot be said that they are also part of the sale deed. Incorporating the name of all the petitioners is on account of the sale deed dated 10.11.1980 11 bearing document No.2568 of 1980 and their names have been incorporated as family members of petitioner No.1. Therefore, other petitioners cannot be attributed as the co-conspirators in the alleged forgery.
19. The very document, which is in dispute, has been adjudged by the forensic science laboratory is not a forged document, therefore, all the allegations levelled against the petitioners may go.
20. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A5 to A9 in C.C.No.828 of 2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 17.10.2022.
ES