Telangana High Court
Smt. Suman Patalay vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1451 of 2019
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 in C.C.No.743 of 2014 on the file of the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, seeking for quashment of the charge sheet, cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 419, 471 IPC and Section 82(C) and (D) of the Registration Act. The de-facto complainants filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, before the learned Magistrate, which was, in turn, forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The facts in brief as per the complaint are that de- facto complainant No.1 has purchased plot No.134 admeasuring 211 square yards in Sy.Nos.9 and 10 situated at Alwal, Ranga Reddy District from de-facto complainant No.2 under a registered sale deed for valid consideration vide document No.162 of 2000. De-facto complainant No.1 has made a construction over the said plot and the 2 municipality has allotted municipal number, electricity service was obtained, property tax is being paid regularly and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same since 2001.
On 07.01.2010, Syndicate Bank officials came over the plot and informed de-facto complainant No.1 that the plot over which she has constructed the house is under mortgage to the bank created by A1 for availing loan for Rs.10 lakhs for her brother/A6. On verification, the de- facto complainant No.1 found that a document is created by way of forgery purported to be a sale deed allegedly executed on 17.03.1993 by one B. Narayan Reddy in favour of A1. It was attested by one Prakash Chand/A2 and Umesh/A3 and A1 to A7 have conspired together and committed the offence. Originally, the property belongs to B.Narayan Reddy. In the document created by the petitioners, which is dated 17.03.1993, the age of the said Narayan Reddy was shown as 38 years. In fact, as on the date of the alleged execution of the document in favour of petitioner No.1, the age of the said Narayan Reddy was 62. 3 The document is created for wrongful gain to A1, A4, A5, A6 and A8. A1 has executed registered equitable mortgage on 24.04.2008, which was attested by A4 and A5. A1 to A7 have conspired criminally and forged the document dated 17.03.1993.
On receipt of the complaint referred by the learned Magistrate, the police have registered a case in Crime No.384 of 2010 against the petitioners and A3 to A8 for the offence under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 468, 471 IPC and Section 82(c), (d) of the Registration Act and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet alleging that all the accused have committed the offence.
Aggrieved by the said charge sheet, the petitioners, who are A1 and A2, have filed this petition to quash the charge sheet on the following grounds:
De-facto complainant No.1 has allegedly purchased the plot in the year 2000 vide document No.162 of 2000, whereas the petitioners have purchased the said plot in the year 1993 from the lawful owner and the encumbrance 4 certificate in respect of the said property reflects the name of petitioner No.1 and thereby in the year 2000 if at all de- facto complainant No.1 has purchased, it is only at her risk and petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner of the said property.
It is submitted further that challenging the document under which petitioner No.1 has purchased the said property in the year 1993, de-facto complainant No.1 has filed O.S.No.74 of 2010 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for cancellation of the same and during the pendency of the said suit, an injunction petition was filed and the same was dismissed and the appeal filed against it was also dismissed. It is submitted further that the suit in O.S.No.74 of 2010 was dismissed for default and de-facto complainant No.1 has not made any effort to restore the same.
It is further submitted that on the very same day the civil suit is filed, de-facto complainant No.1 has filed this criminal complaint before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate and submitted further that the civil Court 5 has ceased of the matter. The continuation of proceedings at criminal Court amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, prayed the Court to allow the petition.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
Now, the point for determination is whether the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.743 of 2014 can be quashed?
Considering the rival contentions, it is clear that there is dispute of ownership between petitioner No.1 on one side and de-facto complainant No.1 on the other side. Cases are also filed before the civil Court and O.S.No.74 of 2010 is stated to have been dismissed for default. It is contended strenuously that since the civil suit filed by de- facto complainant No.1 for cancellation of the document in favour of petitioner No.1 was dismissed for default and de- facto complainant No.1 has not filed any suit since then or any application challenging the document in favour of petitioner No.1, she cannot file and continue the proceedings in the criminal Court to the effect that 6 petitioner No.1 is not the owner and that he got the document executed by way of forgery.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the de-facto complainants has submitted that irrespective of the fact that whether the issue is pending with the civil Court or not, since it is alleged that the petitioners have forged the document and got the same executed, the criminal Court proceedings shall go on.
Even according to the petitioners, O.S.No.74 of 2010, which is filed for cancellation of registered sale deed pertaining to petitioner No.1, was dismissed only for default. The civil Court has not disposed of the said suit on merits as to whether the disputed registered sale deed can be cancelled or not. Admittedly, the document, which is in favour of petitioner No.1, is earlier point of time when compared to the registered sale deed through which de- facto complainant No.1 is claiming right over it.
It is the case of the petitioners that de-facto complainant No.1 has constructed the house after 7 purchase and a door number has also been allotted and she has been paying electricity and municipal tax for the said plot. If at all, really petitioner No.1 is the owner of the property on account of the document, which was purchased in the year 1993, she should have constructed a house or developed the said property, but except the sale deed, she has no other document. The allegation of de- facto complainant No.1 against the petitioners is that the document, which petitioner No.1 is claiming, is created by way of forgery. It is subsequently mentioned that A7 has acted as impersonator and put the thumb mark and he has shown the age of the original owner as 38 years. The question before the criminal Court would be whether the document in question through which petitioner No.1 is claiming the property has come into existence genuinely or by way of forgery.
This Court while considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot go into the details while appreciating the evidence placed before the Court as to which document is genuine and which is not. The trial 8 Court is expected to try this and collect the evidence, may be if required, send the document for forensic experts to know whether the person, who has executed the document, is the real owner or not. Therefore, when such complex factual issues which can be answered only by way of full- fledged trial, this petition for quashment of C.C.No.743 of 2014 cannot be considered and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 24.06.2022 ES