Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Potturi Bangarraju vs The State on 30 September, 2022
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5673 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), by the petitioners herein who are A6 to A9 in C.C.No.250 of 2021 on the file of the Court of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, to quash the Proceedings against them in the above case.
2. The police filed charge sheet after the investigation conducted on the report given by 3rd respondent herein, which reads as follows;
On 17.7.2019, 3rd respondent gave report to the Inspector of Police, Anandapuram Police Station. It is alleged in the report that one Rudraraju Nirankara Varma (A2) is known to her from the year 2016 and he is a Director of Arya Mines and Minerals Private Limited, Hyderabad, for which firm her husband is Geological Consultant. One Vegeshna Ramesh Raju, her husband and some others are partners in Way Granites and Trading firm. In January, 2018 Sri Rudrararaju Nirankara Varma 2 (A2) proposed to sell Ac.0.61 cents of land situated in Garugubilli Village, which was originally owned by her, but later sold to Avya Mines and Minerals Private Limited under an unregistered sale-deed. On 23.01.2018, A2 asked her to come to Sub-Registrar Office. She along with her husband went to the Sub-Registrar Office by 5.00 p.m., and then she was given with some documents by A2 and she signed the documents after thorough verification and gave the same to Rudraraju Nirankara Varma. Later due to some grudges, Rudraraju Nirankara Varma filed a cheque bounce case against her husband at Hyderabad. When her husband went to attend the Court on 14.6.2019, A1 threatened her husband stating that his days have come closure and that he did not hand over documents related to the property at Thangudubilli to Shankar Raju and that the land situated at Bhimavaram is no more his (husband of the reporter) property and if he i.e., her husband goes ahead in respect of the said land or initiates Court proceedings, he will see his end. On that both her husband and herself raised suspicion and obtained Encumbrance Certificate relating to her land bearing Survey No.5 and 3 5/2 which is an extent of Ac.0.44 cents situated in Bhimavaram and came to know that on 23.1.2018 the said land was registered in the name of Vegeshna Ramesh Raju. Thereby they came to know that some cheating took place and that Rudraraju Nirankara Varma (A2) must have created the document by committing forgery of her signature on 23.1.2018, when she sold Ac.0.61 cents of land situated in Garugubilli village in favour of Inkuri Parvathi Devi. She informed the same to one Sri Nadimipalli Satyanarayana Raju who came from Hyderabad to Visakhapatnam and after examining the documents he informed that Rudraraju Nirankara Varma (A2) and Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5)must have committed forgery with the help of employees in Sub- Registrar Office, Anandapuram. Thus, it is stated that Rudraraju Nirankara Varma and Vegeshna Ramesh Raju, Indukuri Parvathi Devi, Indukuri Sitaramaraju and P. Yesu Raju (A4) have together conspired along with the petitioners herein who are A6 to A9 and cheated her, forged her signature relating to her land situated in Bhimavaram, and hence take action against them.
4
Basing on the said report, the Inspector of Police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet alleging that the A1 to A5 are liable for punishment under Section 420, 462, 471 r/w 120-B IPC and that A6 to A9 who are the petitioners herein are liable for punishment under Sections 420 and 423 IPC
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/A6 to A9, learned Public Prosecutor for R1 and R2 and learned counsel for 3rd respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if the allegations in the charge sheet are all accepted to be true, still no offence much less under Sections 420 and 423 IPC herein is made out against the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners have purchased the property from Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) and it is for valid consideration by issuing cheques and that they are no way connected with other transactions much less financial transactions between the reporter of the Crime, her husband and A1 to A5. Thus, the petitioners are bonafide purchasers and they did not play any role in the alleged cheating and on the other hand 5 they are strangers to the prior transactions related to the disputed land.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 seriously contended that there are disputed questions of facts as is evident from the documents that it is within six (6) months period after the alleged purchase by Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) the same has been disposed of in favour of the petitioners/A6 to A9 by a registered sale deed. Thus, within short period of six (6) months and for the very same price, for which, Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) said to have purchased the property had sold it as shown in the sale deed, in favour of the petitioners (A6 to A9) and hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Perused the entire material on record.
7. A1 is one of the partners in M/s. Way Granite's and Trading Firm, Visakhapatnam, A2 is the Director of Avya Mines and Minerals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, A3 is cousin brother of A1 and brother-in-law of A5. They are all doing Real Estate business. A1 also assists the A4 in the Real Estate business of A4. A registered sale deed vide 6 document No.351 of 2018 in respect of Ac.0.43 cents of land bearing Sy.Nos.5, 5/2 situated in Bhimavaram Town, West Godavari District is created as if it was executed by the de facto complainant/ the victim by name Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) in favour of Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5). It is forged one. Thereafter Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) sold the property to the petitioners herein who are all residents of the same village. It is stated in the charge sheet that the investigation revealed that A1, A3, A4 and Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) met A2 in the Guest House and they all conspired to get registration in respect of lands belonging to Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) the victim, as per their preplan and as per the requirement of A1, the A2 furnished copies of sale deed vide document No.1716 of 2015, dated 28.10.2015 relating to the land at Garugubilli and all of them dispersed except A2 and A3 who stayed there for the night in the guest house. On 22.1.2018, A1 with the assistance of A3 got created a fake draft sale deed (Doc.No.351 of 2018, dated 23.1.2018) and by forging the signature of Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) as if she executed, and got it registered in favour of Vegeshna 7 Ramesh Raju (L.W.5). In fact the entire conspiracy has been concealed and has been planned behind the back of the de facto complainant. The accused has falsely claimed that on 23.1.2018, A3 got prepared draft document relating to Garugubilli land of Ac.0.61 cents (sale document No.352 of 2018, dated 23.1.2018) and he took the same to Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) who perused the same and returned in an envelope without remarks and A3 handed over the same to A2.
8. On 23.1.2018 at about 2.30 P.M., A1 to A3 visited Sub-Registrar Office Anandapuram and contacted the Sub-Registrar and staff and managed for the registration of the genuine document relating to Garugubilli lands and false document relating to land of Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) located at Bhimavaram. Thereafter A1 exchanged information with A2 and A5, who came to Sub-Registrar's office and then as per instructions of A1, the A2 asked the de facto complainant to attend the Sub-Registrar's office, Anandapuram for execution and registration. Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) authorized Indukuri Parvathi Devi (L.W.4) as the representative 8 through A1 for registration. At about 5.00 p.m., both Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) and her husband entered the Sub-Registrar Office, Anandapuram and both Pericherla Sasi Prabha (L.W.1) and I.Parvathi Devi (L.W.4) signed the sale deed relating to the land situated in Garugubilli village. The staff of Sub-Registrar's office have obtained their finger prints and Irish identity. Then the power was cut off and during that time the Sub-Registrar's office informed that the Irish identity and finger prints obtained are not proper and wanted for second time wherein the fake document relating to Bhimavaram lands was placed before the Sub-Registrar who registered the same as Doc.No.351 of 2018. In respect of Garugubilli lands registered sale deed vide document No.352 of 2018 has been recorded and thereafter all of them dispersed.
9. On perusal of the entire record, it goes to show that in Sub-Registrar Office, Anandapuram, two documents have to be registered at the same time on the very same day one after the other and that one transaction that had taken place is genuine and the other transaction recorded in Doc.No.351 of 2018 is a fake and it is 9 fabricated document standing in the name of Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) of Bhimavaram. Thereafter within a short time the same property has been sold to the petitioners herein by Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5).
10. A perusal of the entire material on record raises question that whether the petitioners purchased the property from Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5) is a bonafide purchase or not. It is certainly a question of fact and the same has to be decided in the course of trial. Truth or otherwise of the said allegations that whether the petitioners are bonafide purchasers or not has to be elicited after full-fledged trial. The modus operandi of the petitioners cannot be decided at this premature stage. At this stage, this Court would not be in a position to come to conclusion to hold whether the petitioners are bonafide purchasers or having hand in glove with the accused 1 to 5 and Vegeshna Ramesh Raju (L.W.5). Prima facie on the face of the accusations, it is clear they are serious and they have to be taken into account. For accepting those accusations, there is some material placed on record against the petitioners herein that the purchase of the said 10 property is not bonafide. At this stage it is too premature for this Court to go into minute details of the case and the same has to be ascertained during the course of trial. The defences that are sought to be raised are all being questions of fact, they have to be established in the course of trial. This Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is primarily concerned with the accusations that are made in the charge-sheet and other connecting material available on record, but cannot make a roving enquiry about the truthfulness or falsity of the same.
11. In view of the same, this is premature for this Court to interfere with the proceedings in C.C.No.250 of 2021 pending on the file of the Court of XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Hence the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 30.09.2022 GR 11 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5673 of 2021 Date: 30.09.2022 GR