Telangana High Court
Sri P.A. Lawrence And Another vs State Of Telangana And Another on 7 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8036 AND 8361 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
The parties and the lis involved in both the criminal petitions are the same and therefore, the same were heard together and are disposed of with the following common order.
2. Both these Criminal Petitions are filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7703 of 2019 pending on the file of XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, against the petitioners herein. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.8036 of 2022 is A.1 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.8361 of 2022 are A.2 and A.3 in the said case. The offences alleged against the petitioners herein are under Sections 420, 406, 447, 468 and 471 read with 120-B of IPC.
3. Heard Sri Avaneesh Naraparaju, learned counsel for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 and Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, 2 learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the 1st respondent - State and Sri K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
4. Perusal of record would reveal that on the complaint lodged by 2nd respondent herein, the Police, CCS, DD, Hyderabad, have registered a case in Cr.No.80 of 2017 against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer, filed final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. referring the said complaint as 'lack of evidence'. Thereafter, 2nd respondent herein had filed a protest petition vide Crl.M.P.No.6527 of 2017. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences.
5. Perusal of the said final report would reveal that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, in Cr.No.80 of 2019 recorded the statements of Sub Registrar, Maredpally, Secunderabad as L.W.2. The Thumb Impression Registers were called for by filing requisition 3 before the learned Magistrate and upon receiving the said Registers, the same were sent to the Director, Fingerprints Bureau, Telangana State, Hyderabad for comparing the Thumb Impression Registers, vide Doc.No.2442 of 1992 with the thumb impression made in Document No.294 of 1993 so as to come to conclusion. At that particular point of time there were no photographs on the documents. The Director, Fingerprints Bureau, Telangana State submitted his report denoting that the thumb impressions made by K.Johnson in both the documents i.e. sale deed bearing Document No.2442 of 1992 executed on 20.10.1992 in favour of the 2nd respondent and original cancellation deed bearing Document No.294/1993 executed on 09.02.1993, are made by K.Johnson and both are identical and are one and the same which means both the thumb impressions in the documents are made by K.Johnson.
6. In the final report, it is also mentioned that as per the statement of the 2nd respondent, even the vendor K.Johnson has not given the original document and link document bearing Document No.2442/1992. The 2nd 4 respondent failed to initiate any action against vendor K.Johnson even though she did not receive the originals of link documents relating to Plot No.104 till 2012 and she failed to give satisfactory reasons for abnormal delay. She also failed to produce the relevant documents to prove the allegations levelled against the petitioners despite giving her enough opportunities. Two suits vide O.S.No.28 of 2016 and O.S.No.285 of 2016 filed by the 2nd respondent and the petitioners herein are pending. In the said final report, it is also mentioned that the Investigating Officer has obtained opinion of the Legal Advisor and thereafter referred the case as 'lack of evidence'.
7. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has filed a protest petition raising several contentions including forgery etc. It is also specifically contended that a vendor is not entitled to unilaterally cancel a sale deed executed by him earlier in respect of particular property and such cancellation amounts to cheating. It is also however contended that with regard to the establishment of her name, relief to any party to a dispute cannot be denied merely on technical 5 grounds but the problem has to be solved on merits. The 2nd respondent has filed 16 documents along with the said protest petition.
8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the said K.Johnson, was the original owner of the subject property i.e. plot No.104, Sy.No.74/12 situated at East Maredpally, Secunderabad and he sold the said property to A.1 by way of agreement of sale dated 09.02.1993, since the said K.Johnson has not received the balance sale consideration and executed registered sale deed in favour of A.1, he has filed a suit O.S.No.601/2001 seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 09.02.1993. The said suit was decreed on 17.07.2006 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he has also filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.86 of 2007 in O.S.No.601 of 2001 and the same was allowed by the learned III Senior Civil Jude, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and through authorized clerk has executed a registered sale deed No.1111 of 2009 dated 06.02.2009 in favour of 6 the A.1. On the strength of the said sale deed, he has sold the subject property in favour of A.3 by way of executing a registered sale deed Document No.378 of 2015, dated 12.12.2014.
9. The Trimoorthy Weaker Sections Co-operative Housing Society, represented by its Secretary had filed an application under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act vide ARC No.21 of 2000 against the said K.Johnson and the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), Hyderabad has passed an Award under Section 62(4) of the Act dismissing the said application. It appears from the record that learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of 2nd respondent as P.W.1 in the protest petition and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 11.06.2019 passed the following order:-
"Heard. By considering the sworn statement of PW.1 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.16, this case is taken on file against the accused for the offences under Sections 506, 447, 420, 468 and 471 read with 120(B) of IPC. Issue summons to accused on payment of process. Call on 16.12.2019."7
10. In the docket order dated 11.06.2019, there is no consideration of the report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.80 of 2017 referring it as 'lack of evidence'. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of two witnesses and also obtained report from the Fingerprints Bureau. Learned Magistrate has to defer with the findings of the Investigating Officer in the said report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, before taking cognizance on the protest petition. There is no consideration of the said report including the statements of two witnesses and there is no consideration of the deposition of the P.W.1 in protest petition including Exs.P.1 to P.16 by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order dated 11.06.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the contents of the protest petition lacks the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners/A.2 and A.3 who are bona fide purchasers. A.1 has purchased the subject property from the original owner K.Johnson through registered sale deed executed in his favour through the 8 authorized clerk of the Court. Therefore, there is no inducement by the A.1.
11. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the contents of the protest petition constitute ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein and the Court below has considered the same.
12. As discussed supra, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein vide aforesaid cryptic docket order dated 11.06.2019.
13. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to mention that the learned Magistrate has not considered the contents of the report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. There is no consideration of the grounds raised by the 2nd respondent in the protest petition, decree in the above said suit O.S.No.601/2001 and Award in ARC No.21 of 2000. Likewise, there is no consideration of deposition of P.W.1 9 and Exs.P.1 to P.16. According to this Court, the said docket order dated 11.06.2019 is a cryptic order, it is not a reasoned and well founded. Any order without reasons is an order without application of mind and it is nullity.
14. In view of the above discussion, without going into the merits, the impugned docket order dated 11.06.2019 is liable to be quashed.
15. In the result, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of. The docket order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6527 of 2017 by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan, Hyderabad is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:07.06.2022 vvr