Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kancherla Sri Rama Chandra Murthy 5 ... vs Nallajarla Nagamani Another on 31 December, 2020
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6850 of 2015
ORDER:(Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App(virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 Pandemic) The present Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code(for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.78 of 2015 of Penugonda Police Station, West Godavari District. The said Crime has been registered on the complaint of the 1st respondent/defacto complainant against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code( for short 'I.P.C.').
Heard Mr.A.Sreekanth Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.C.Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The first respondent is the daughter of one late Kancharla Satyanarayana Murthy, the petitioners 1 to 3 are his sons, the 4th petitioner is the henchman of petitioners 1 to 3 and petitioners 5 to 7 are sons of petitioners 1 to 3 respectively. The father of petitioners 1 to 3 i.e., Kancharla Satyanarayana Murthy died on 22.07.2003. It is alleged that during the life time of late Kancharla Satyanarayana Murthy, he executed a Will dated 29.03.1996 vide document bearing No.34/1996 and under the said Will, he reserved the life estate to his wife and vested remainder in favour of petitioners 1 to 3 in respect of A,B,C properties and insofar 'D' schedule property to the first respondent. The first respondent and her mother late Adilakshmi enjoyed the property after the demise of said Kancharla 2 Satyanarayana Murthy and petitioners 1 to 7/accused made attempts to dispossess the first respondent from the property. As such, the 1st respondent and her mother filed O.S.No.491 of 2004 in the Court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/accused not to interfere with their peaceful possession. While so, on 10.03.2010 the mother of first respondent i.e., the said Adilakshmi died and during the course of enquiry, petitioners 1 to 3 got prepared forged Will dated 09.06.2003 with the active instigation of petitioners 4 to 7 purposed to have been signed by their father late Kancharla Satyanarayana Murthy. During the pendency of the above suit, the said Will dated 09.06.2003 was sent to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad, for expert opinion and the expert opined that the Will dated 09.06.2003 is a forged one. Subsequently, the said suit was dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, without any opinion regarding the genuineness of the Will. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed an appeal vide A.S.No.16 of 2013 before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, and the same is pending.
While being so, on receipt of complaint from the first respondent, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, referred the case to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.78/2015 of Penugonda Police Station, West Godavari District for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petition raising several grounds.
The learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that the complaint is lodged on the basis of the deposition of the expert dated 15.11.2011 during the course of trial in O.S.No.491 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, which is a suit for 3 permanent injunction filed by the first respondent against the petitioners herein, and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.08.2012. In fact during the course of cross examination on 18.11.2009, P.W.3 who was examined on behalf of the first respondent/complainant, admitted the signatures of the petitioners' father and the Will dated 09.06.2003. The said Will was marked as Ex.B3 and the signature was marked as Ex.B1. Under the said circumstances, lodging the complaint that too after a long delay of about four years from the date of examination of concerned witness in the suit is nothing but abuse of process of law and the complaint was lodged only to exert pressure on the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the said judgment and decree in O.S.No.491 of 2004, the first respondent carried the matter by way of an appeal A.S.No.16 of 2013 and the same is pending on the file the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku. He submits that the dispute is purely of civil in nature and having failed to disprove the Will dated 09.06.2003, the signature on which, it was admitted by P.W.3, is that of the petitioners' father, the first respondent instead of getting the decree of Trial Court reversed in the appeal by duly contesting the matter, filed the complaint merely on the opinion of the expert dated 11.09.2006 and his later deposition on 15.11.2011. While contending, that the opinion given by the expert is not conclusive and binding on the Court, the learned counsel would further submit that, in fact, the suit was dismissed without giving any opinion on the genuineness of the Will. Under the said circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but gross abuse of process of law and the only intention of the first respondent is to harass the petitioners taking advantage of the criminal proceedings.
The learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand while referring to the provisions of Sections 463, 468, 478 and 420 of I.P.C., 4 would contend that as the Will produced before the Civil Court is not a genuine Will as per the opinion of the expert, the first respondent rightly gave complaint and the genuineness of the Will in terms of the opinion of the expert is required to be investigated. He further submits that the evidence of forensic expert would be at higher footing than that of P.W.3 and merely because P.W.3 admitted the signature of the first respondent's father, it would not preclude the first respondent from lodging the complaint and the petitioners cannot be allowed to pre-empt the investigation into the matter. He submits that it is a matter for investigation as to whether the offence of forgery has been committed.
The contentions of both the parties are considered. As seen from the material filed along with the criminal petition, it is not in dispute that the expert gave his opinion on 11.09.2006, but subsequently, the witnesses were examined on behalf of the first respondent who was plaintiff in the suit referred to above, and P.W.3 in his cross examination dated 18.11.2009 deposed as follows:
".......I can identify the signature of executants of Ex.A1. The signature now shown to me is his signature. The signature is shown to the witness by folding the paper, in such a way that the matter and signature below it are not visible. The signature is marked as Ex.B1. The signature on the Will dated 09.06.2003 is shown to the witness and witness identified the signature which is marked as Ex.B1......."
Ex.B3 is an unregistered Will dated 09.06.2003 and as per the above deposition of P.W.3, it is clear that he admitted the signature of the petitioner's father which is marked as Ex.B1. Under the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that obviously as it would be difficult to get over the same, the 1st respondent lodged complaint against the petitioners after dismissal of the suit and during the pendency of A.S.No.16 of 2013 filed 5 against the judgment and decree in the said suit. The intention on the part of the first respondent, in the considered view of this Court, in the light of evidence recorded in the above referred suit appears to be only to exert pressure on the petitioners, that too when the matter is pending before the appellate Court. Therefore, this Court has no reason to disagree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the parties can as well agitate on the issue of the Will in the appeal which is pending consideration.
In such view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.78 of 2015 of Penugonda Police Station, West Godavari District, amounts to abuse of process of law. Accordingly in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the same are quashed.
The Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs of the Criminal Petition.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 31.12.2020 BLV 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6850 of 2015 31.12.2020 BLV