Telangana High Court
Aatish Kumar Agarwal And 6 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 26 October, 2022
Author: D.Nagarjun
Bench: D.Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1604 of 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 9 to quash FIR in Crime No.41 of 2019 of RGI Airport Police Station registered for the offence Under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Registration Act.
02. The facts in brief as can be seen from record available before the Court are as under:
a) On 10.01.2019 the Sub Registrar, Shamshabad has filed a complaint before the Shamshabad Police Station stating that one K.Bala Chandra Reddy has filed a complaint in his office stating that his family was having lands in Sy.Nos663 and 664 situated at Shamshabad and they entered into an agreement of sale cum GPA with one Mr.Mahender Kumar Agarwal and 8 others i.e., the petitioners - Accused Nos.3 to 9 on 13.04.2006 and got it registered as document bearing No.5501 of 2006. In anticipation of payment of money, they got prepared a sale deed on 18.04.2006 but on account of cropping of litigation, the said K.Bala Chandra Reddy and family members have not received sale consideration from Mahender Kumar Agarwal and thereby 2 sale deed was not executed. However, the sale deed dated 18.04.2016, which was not executed by K.Bala Chandra Reddy and his family members was registered illegally as document bearing No.1400 of 2014 and none of the executants shown in the documents have attended the Sub Registrar Office.
b) It is also mentioned in the complaint that in the said sale deed bearing document No.1400 of 2014 some pages have fallen short and thereby new pages were added, wherein executants have signed. The Sub Registrar in his complaint has also mentioned that he has examined the sale deed bearing document No.1400 of 2014 and found following irregularities:
a) date of execution was altered from 18th day of March, 2006 to 18th day of April, 2006
b) the claimant added the date as 05.05.2014 as afterthought after lok adalath issued orders on 12.04.2014 to present the document as if within time,
c) two sheets were added to the document with forged signatures (7th page and plan sheet)
d) the document was executed on 18.04.2006 was admitted and registered on 05.05.2014 in violation of section 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 rendering the document invalid and as such presentation of the document was beyond the time limit which is incurable defect.
c) The Sub Registrar has further stated in his complaint that the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District has accorded permission on 28.11.2018 vide memo 3 No.2274/G1/2017 for launching of prosecution against one K.Ashok, the then Sub Registrar for registering fraudulent sale deed. The Sub Registrar has also mentioned the names of the persons, who got the fraudulent document executed and the details of which are as follows:
1) Sri K. Ashok, Sub-Registrar (retired) 2) Sri Mahender Kumar Agarwal S/o. Sri Laxmi Chand,
R/o. H.No.16-11-741/5/1/C, Flat No.101, Vijetha Heights, Moosarambagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
3) Sri Atish Kumar Agarwal, S/o. Sri Mahender Kumar Agarwal, R/o. H.No.16-11-741/5/1/C, Flat No.101, Vijetha Heights, Moosarambagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
4) Smt.Anuradha, W/o. Sri Mahender Kumar Agarwal, R/o. H.No.16-11-741/5/1/C, Flat No.101, Vijetha Heights, Moosarambagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad
5) Smt. Komal Goyal, W/o. Sri Sandeep Goyal, R/o.
4-4-699 to 703, K.S.Lane Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
6) Smt. Tripti Goyal W/o. Sri Girish Kumar Goyal, R/o. 4-4-699 to 703, K.S.Lane Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.
7) Smt.Vidya Devi Agarwal, W/o. Late Sri Ram Vilas Agarwal, R/o. 16 B/1/G4/GF, Flat No. G4 and G5, Sri Satya Sai Vihar Apartments, Phase - 2, Behind West Maredpally, Police Station, Secunderabad Cantonment.
8) Sri Bajranglal, S/o. Late Sri Bihari Lal, R/o. Housing Board Colony, MIG Flat, Block 5, Flat No.20, Mukram Jahi Road, Hyderabad.
9) Smt. HJyothi Agarwal, S/o. Sri Sanjay Agarwal, R/o. Plot No.280, Kamalapuri Colony, Hyderabad. 4
10) Sri Mohanlal, S/o. Late Sri Biharilal, R/o. H.No.8-3-68/12, LIC Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.
Hence, the Sub-Registrar has requested the Police to take necessary action against Mr.K.Ashok, Sub-Registrar, who registered the fraudulent sale deed along with others.
03. On the strength of the complaint received from Sub- Registrar the Police on 28.01.2019, a case in Crime No.41 of 2019 was registered by Shamshabad Police Station for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Registration Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners - accused Nos.3 to 9 have filed the criminal petition to quash Crime No.41 of 2019 against them on the following grounds:
i) K.Balachandra Reddy and his family members including his late father K. Rama Subba Reddy and his later mother Smt. K.Sarojanamma, Smt, K.Sujana and Sri K.Krishna have sold agricultural lands in Sy.Nos.663 and 664 admeasuring Ac.3.00 out of Ac.3.22 guntas situated at Shamshabad Village under agreement of sale cum GPA with possession through registered document bearing No.5501 of 2006 dated 13.04.2006 in favour of the petitioners and two others namely Mahender Kumar 5 Agarwal, who expired on 14.02.2018 and Mohan Lal, who expired on 23.08.2018.
ii) Consideration of Rs.30 lakhs was paid through Demands Drafts and vendors have also encashed the same. The sale deed was also prepared and all the vendors have signed the document in the month of April, 2006. However, the document was about to be registered, the petitioners came to know that O.S.No.1549 of 2005 was filed for partition and separate possession by the brother of K.Balachandra Reddy and thereby registration could not be done.
iii) As the registration was getting delayed, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.519 of 2013 on the file of learned I Additional District Judge, R.R.District for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the vendors.
iv) All the vendors have appeared before the Court and admitted their claim under agreement of sale cum GPA and thereby the matter was referred to Lok Adalath and settled on 12.04.2014. After that sale deed was registered as document No.1400 of 2014 dated 05.05.2014. K.Balachandra Reddy and others have jointly executed GPA vide document No.3 of 2014 dated 04.04.2014 and permitted to compromise in Lok Adalat. 6
Thereafter, award was also passed by the Lok Adalat. Later sale deed was executed on 05.04.2014.
v) Aggrieved by the registration of the sale deed K.Balachandra Reddy filed complaint on 09.12.2014 vide FIR No.413 of 2014 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After enquiry, the Police have filed final report on 31.08.2015 referring the same as civil in nature. Once again the same K.Balachandra Reddy has filed complaint on 01.06.2017 to the Sub Registrar making all false allegations against the petitioners that they have created fraudulent documents.
vi) Once the matter is settled before the Lok Adalath and award was passed, wherein the defendants admitted the suit claim of the plaintiff therein, the de-facto complainant cannot raise the issue and file another complaint.
vii) K.Balachandra Reddy has filed a suit in O.S.No.521 of 2017 for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.1400 of 2014 dated 05.05.2014 only with a malafide intention.
04. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel representing Mr.M.Rajender Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on respondent 7 No.2, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. Thus, arguments on behalf of respondent No.2 are treated as heard.
05. Now the point for determination is:
"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR in Crime No.41 of 2019 of RGI Airport Police Station, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
06. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the contents of complaint based on which impugned FIR was registered are similar to there of the complaint filed by K.Balachandra Reddy on 09.12.2014 against which a case in FIR No.413 of 2014 was registered and Police after investigation has closed the FIR as civil in nature and therefore, based on the same set of facts, another complaint cannot be registered as FIR.
07. The petitioner has filed copy of the FIR in Crime No.413 of 2014 and also filed final report in Crime No.413 of 2014. In the final report filed by the Police, it is observed that as per the AGPA document bearing No.5501 of 2006, total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs.30 lakhs and there was no specific averment on record to show that the vendors agreed to pay Rs.1 crore per acre.
8
08. On going through the final report in FIR No.413 of 2014. It is clear that the Police did not investigate in respect of the allegations for the offence alleged against them under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint of K.Balachandra Reddy in the FIR No.413 of 2014 goes to show that the petitioners have taken signatures on white papers also forged his signatures. However, the Police have not investigated in respect of allegations of the de-facto complainant therein that the petitioners have committed the offence of forgery punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
09. In the case on hand, the petitioners are challenging FIR No. 41 of 2019. The said K.Balachandra Reddy has not filed complaint before the Police but he has filed complaint before the Sub Registrar, Shamshabad mainly alleging that the irregularities have committed while execution of document bearing No.1400 of 2014 as signature of K.Balachandra Reddy and other family members were forged. The idea of K.Balachandra Reddy for filing the complaint before the Sub Registrar, Shamshabad may not be to file a Police complaint but to inform the Sub Registrar that the document bearing No.1400 of 2014 was fraudulently registered so that the Sub Registrar will initiate the action permissible under law. The contents of 9 complaint of Sub Registrar would go to show that on receipt of complaint from K.Balachandra Reddy, which is similar to that of complaint given by him in Crime No.413 of 2014, the Sub Registrar has done internal investigation in his office. As per the internal investigation, the Sub Registrar has found the following irregularities.
a) date of execution was altered from 18th day of March, 2006 to 18th day of April, 2006
b) the claimant added the date as 05.05.2014 as afterthought after lok adalath issued orders on 12.04.2014 to present the document as if within time,
c) two sheets were added to the document with forged signatures (7th page and plan sheet)
d) the document was executed on 18.04.2006 was admitted and registered on 05.05.2014 in violation of section 23 and 25 of the Registration Act, 1908 rendering the document invalid and as such presentation of the document was beyond the time limit which is incurable defect.
10. On perusal of the above said irregularities, it is clear that the petitioners in collusion with the then Sub Registrar K.Ashok have committed irregularities in execution of the document bearing No. 1400 of 2014. The Sub Registrar has sought permission from his superior officer for launching prosecution and filed complaint. The Sub Registrar is very much specific that there are some alterations in respect of date 10 of execution of the document. It is also stated that adding date as 05.05.2014 as an afterthought and registration of document on 18.04.2006 was contrary to Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act and the document was presented beyond the time limit, which was incurable defect/mistake. Apart from this, the allegations mentioned by the K.Balachandra Reddy is that his signatures were forged while execution of the document.
11. Therefore, on considering entire material on record, it is clear that there is prima-facie material against the petitioners. The report of the Sub Registrar, who is a neutral person and who has no reason to take specific stand against any person has attributed a lot by mentioning in the complaint to the Police that his enquiries reveal that there are irregularities in execution of document bearing No.1400 of 2014. Therefore, when there is clear and direct material that the irregularities were committed in execution of documents, it cannot be said that there is no prima-facie material against the petitioners.
12. The registration of FIR in Crime No.413 of 2014 and its closure will not certainly affect the case of the de-facto 11 complainant herein as complaint filed in the present case is not K.Balachandra Reddy but the Sub Registrar of Shamshabad. Though the Sub Registrar acted on the complaint of K.Balachandra Reddy, still his own investigation conclusions also added to the said complaint and concluded that the petitioners have committed the offence. In previous FIR as already discussed above, the Police have not investigated as to whether there was forgery of the document as alleged. Therefore, in the latest FIR there is material in the form of investigation done by the Sub Registrar and therefore, on the complaint apart from Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code Sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act were also added.
13. Even otherwise, the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely. So far as allegations leveled against the petitioners in this crime, the Police will in any way continue the investigation and during the course of investigation, the petitioners will get an opportunity to file all the documents connected to the issue and the Police taking into consideration of the said facts and documents would complete the investigation and if at all the contentions of the petitioners are correct, the Police may also likely to file final report and in case 12 if the de-facto complainant or Police gets some more information or material, Police would consider filing of charge sheet.
14. Once, it is specifically mentioned that the signatures of de-facto complainant and others have been forged, the Police would investigation on those lines and will try to send the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures to the FSL to arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was any element of forgery as alleged. Therefore, without giving an opportunity to the Police to complete the investigation, filing this Criminal Petition at the stage of FIR cannot be permitted. Therefore, the Police shall be permitted to investigate into the matter, so that they can file proper report as required under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
15. The Honourable Supreme Court in a celebrated Judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others1, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines are:
"(a) 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 1 1992 AIR 604 13 entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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;
(c) where the uncontroverted 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;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) 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." 14
16. In M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure v. The State Of Maharashtra2 the honourable Supreme Court held as follows:
15. As observed hereinabove, there may be "
some cases where the initiation of criminal proceedings may be an abuse of process of law. In such cases, and only in exceptional cases and where it is found that non interference would result into miscarriage of justice, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may quash the FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings and even may stay the further investigation. However, the High Court should be slow in interfering the criminal proceedings at the initial stage, i.e., quashing petition filed immediately after lodging the FIR/complaint and no sufficient time is given to the police to investigate into the allegations of the FIR/complaint, which is the statutory right/duty of the police under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no denial of the fact that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but as observed by this Court in catena of decisions, referred to hereinabove, conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious and it casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court. Therefore, in exceptional cases, when the High Court deems it fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, may pass appropriate interim orders, 2 2021 SCC online SC 315 15 as thought apposite in law, however, the High Court has to give brief reasons which will reflect the application of mind by the court to the relevant facts."
17. In view of the principle laid down in the above said authorities and considering the facts of the case on hand and since there are many factual issues involved in this case, which would be discovered by the Police during the course of investigation, it is not a fit case to conclude that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioners, more particularly in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ DR. D.NAGARJUN, J Date: 26.10.2022 AS