Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pampana Padmakar, E.G.Dt., vs State Of Ap., Rep Pp., And Anr., on 15 October, 2019
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Criminal Petition No.3396 of 2013
ORDER:
This petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C') is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.101 of 2013 of Rajahmundry Urban Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC and Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
2. The 2nd respondent herein filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajahmundry under Section 190 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC alleging that the petitioner/Accused No.1 obtained signatures of her father late Mulasa Suryanarayana on blank papers by playing fraud, created a false promissory note, filed a false suit in O.S.No.44 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry and got attached the landed property to an extent of Ac.1.40 cents of wet land, situated in R.S.No.79 and 392/3 of Venkatayapalem village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, a house bearing Door No.19-10-4, situated in Satyaprasanna Nagar, h/o Suryarao Pet, Kakinanda, Maruti 800 Car, bearing Registration No.AP5BG 2365, as if they are self-acquired properties of late Mulasa Suryanarayana, who died recently on 31.07.2012. On enquiry the petitioner/2nd respondent came to know about the attachment of this landed property. The 1st accused is responsible for the said attachment of the landed property and thereupon she lodged a complaint with the Additional Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada against the 1st accused. The said complaint was referred to Station House Officer, Drakshrama Police Station, for investigation and necessary action. During the course of enquiry on that petition, the 1st respondent admitted before the Sub- 2 Inspector of Police, Draksharama Police Station that he himself got obtained the said attachment order for Ac.1.40 cents of landed property by setting up one of his friends by name Pothamsetti Rama Reddy as the plaintiff and by filing a suit for recovery of money under a promissory note, as if late Mulasa Suryanarayana borrowed an amount of Rs.6,70,000/- from the said Pothamsetti Rama Reddy, during his life time on 18-06-2006 and he himself furnished the said suit number. On that the police advised late Mulasa Suryanarayana to approach the Court concerned immediately as a decree was already passed and his landed property was attached without any notice to him. On further enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to know that the 1st accused got filed a suit in O.S.No.44 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,48,826/- by setting up a person by name Pothamsetty Rama Reddy, the 2nd accused got attached the property. The petitioner got filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code in I.A.No.286/2012 in O.S.No.44/209 to set aside the exparte decree, on the file of Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry.
3. It is further alleged that the 1st accused obtained the signatures of Malasa Suryanarayana on several blank papers and that the suit promissory note might have been brought into existence by the 1st accused, by utilizing one such blank paper on which the signatures of late Mulasa Suryanarayana were obtained, by playing fraud against him. With the aid of his signatures on blank papers, the 1st accused has forged the signatures of late Mulasa Suryanarayana on a vakalat and got it filed in the above referred suit in O.S.No.44/2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry through Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate, Ramachandrapuram and Sri R.Vajra Kumar, Advocate, Rajahmundry, and thus committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, and prayed to take the complaint on file and try the accused and convict the accused in accordance with law. But, the Magistrate instead of recording the statements, 3 having found that the allegations made in the complaint are to be investigated into, exercising the power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, referred the complaint to the police and the same is registered as a case in F.I.R.No.101 of 2013 on the file of Rajahmundry Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, and issued F.I.R.
4. Aggrieved by the registration of the crime against this petitioner/Accused No.1, the present petition is filed on the ground that the complainant being the daughter of deceased Mulasa Suryanarayana is incompetent to file private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and that the allegations made in the complaint does not constitute any offence much less the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true.
5. Filing of private complaint before the Magistrate after the respondent obtained decree in O.S.No.44 of 2009 from the Court of Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry is only to avoid the liability under decree in O.S.No.44 of 2009 and not otherwise, and it is only a wreck vengeance against the petitioner and requested to quash the proceedings against this petitioner/accused No.1.
6. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for petitioner/Accused No.1 would contend that the petitioner is incompetent to lodge a report with the police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 and he placed a reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Md.Ibrahim & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr in Criminal Appeal No.1695 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6211 of 2007) Supreme Court, and drew the attention of this Court to Para 15 of the judgment to contend that the petitioner/3rd respondent has no lucus-standi to file the complaint on the basis of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, requested to quash the proceedings.
4
7. The notices on the respondents were served and proof of service is also filed, but none appeared for the respondents.
8. It is an undisputed fact that the decree was obtained by the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.44 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry and attached the property in execution of the decree. The decree was obtained during the life time of Mulasa Suryanarayana, who did not contest the suit even after receiving notice though he filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code in I.A.No.286/2012 in O.S.No.44/209, and the result of the said I.A is not known. When the suit is decreed, filing of a complaint as if the 1st accused created the promissory note and got filed a suit through the 2nd respondent is nothing but abuse of process of Court, since the Court already recorded a finding that the execution of the promissory note which is a subject matter of O.S.No.44 of 2009 on the file of Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry was proved and decreed the suit on the basis of such document. The said Suryanarayana during his life time did not raise his little finger against the alleged forgery. He was alive till 31st July, 2012, and the decree was passed long prior to his death, but no steps were taken to prosecute either of the accused for any of the offences, but only as an after thought in the year 2013, she filed a complaint on 01-04-2013 after the death of her father. The 2nd respondent filed the private complaint, but absolutely there is no material to accept her contention to proceed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, even otherwise she is not a party to the document i.e., the promissory note, which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.44 of 2009 and thereby she is not competent to file private complaint against this petitioner.
5
9. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Md.Ibrahim & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr. referred supra wherein the Supreme Court specifically held that 'a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint'. The case of the above judgment is that the suit was filed based on agreement of sale and a third party raised such contention that the fraud is played on the original sale deed, the Apex Court held that the purchaser alone is competent to raise such contention. Therefore, on this ground also the proceedings against this petitioner/1st accused are liable to be quashed.
10. Yet another lacunae in the complaint is that the allegations made in Para 19 of the complaint specifically show that the 1st accused allegedly obtained signatures of her father Mulasa Surayanarayana on blank papers by playing fraud against him, and with the aid of the signatures on blank promissory note she forged the signatures. Forgery is defined under Section 463 IPC as follows:-
'Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".
But the facts of the present case did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted on its face value since, the document is allegedly fabricated with the aid of blank signed papers, it would constitute any offence.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case under more particularly on what circumstances this report was lodged by the 2nd respondent, after passing of decree against the said Mulasa Suryanarayana in the year 2009, it can safely be inferred that the complaint was filed with an 6 intention to wreck vengeance against the petitioner/accused No.1 and to avoid payment under the decree in O.S.No.44 of 2019 on the file of Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry.
12. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal laid down certain guidelines to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which are enumerated as follows:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.7
13. As per guidelines 1st and 2nd, if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted on its face value as true, do not constitute an offence, the court can exercise its power to quash the proceedings and at the same time the last guideline referred supra permits the court to quash the proceedings, when the report lodged with the police is by abuse of process of law or that the report lodged with the police to wreck vengeance against the petitioner or to come to the terms of the complainant. Therefore, I find that it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against this petitioner on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, and that the 2nd respondent has no locus-standi to lodge private complaint against the petitioner herein. Consequently, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
14. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in F.I.R.No.101 of 2013 on the file of Rajahmundry Urban Police Station, East Godavari District.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 15.10.2019.
IS 8 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3396 of 2013 Date: 15-10-2019 IS.