Telangana High Court
Kodurupaka Venkata Swamy vs The State Of Telangana on 19 September, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9017 OF 2018
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.75 of 2017 on the file of JFCM, Husnabad, cognizance of which was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:
3. The de-facto complainant and the petitioner belong to same village. Father of the de-facto complainant has sold Ac.3.00 of land to the accused. Since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The de-facto complainant family was also having some more land. Since the de-facto complainant was working as a Government teacher, the said land was also leased out in favour of the petitioner. After the death of father of the de-facto complainant, the accused has forged the signature of the de- facto complainant's father and got the entries entered in all the revenue records as the owner of the property. Later after realizing the fact that the name of the petitioner was entered in all the revenue records, the de-facto complainant and 2 others held panchayat in respect of elders wherein it was decided that the petitioner was unauthorizedly occupied and it was held in the panchayat that either in case if the petitioner wanted to continue the possession, they have to pay the cost of the land to the de-facto complainant. Subsequently, as there was no fruitful result, the de-facto complainant has filed a complaint before the police. Police have registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.14 of 2014 under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and issued FIR on 10.02.2014.
4. During the course of investigation, apart from recording the statements of witnesses and collecting the document from the revenue officials, the SI of Police has also sent the disputed document to the handwriting expert for a report as to whether the signatures on the alleged sale deed belong to the father of the de-facto complainant. On completion of investigation, the forensic science laboratory has replied that the signature on the disputed document is not that of the father of the de-facto complainant and filed charge sheet holding that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
3
5. Aggrieved by taking of cognizance of the offence against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, the petitioner has filed this petition on the following grounds:
6. There is no truth in the allegations of the charge sheet. Petitioner has obtained ROR proceedings, pattadar passbook and title deeds and at the time of effecting mutation, objections were called for, but nobody has raised objections and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last more than 30 years, and after the death of the father of the de-facto complainant, this false complaint has been filed.
7. The petitioner is aged about 60 years old and though FIR was registered in 2014, he was not aware of pendency of the FIR, thereby he is filing the petition for discharge belatedly in the year 2018. It is also stated further that the de-facto complainant has filed a suit in O.S.No.56 of 2009 through his wife and sons about five years ago in respect of the said property and the complaint is filed belatedly. It is 4 also stated that the complaint is barred by limitation as it was filed after more than 30 years after effecting mutation.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Now, the point for determination is whether the charge sheet against the petitioner can be quashed?
10. The petitioner is seeking quashment of the charge sheet basically on the ground. (1) that the mutation was effected and the name of the petitioner was incorporated about 30 years ago by the revenue officials after completing all the formalities like calling for objections, giving public notice etc., and (2) that after following due process, the revenue authorities have issued title deeds and pattadar passbook in respect of the disputed land and therefore, filing complaint after 30 years is belated and has no limitation.
11. The contention of the petitioner is not at all convincing. According to the de-facto complainant, on coming to know about the offence committed by the petitioner, he has immediately filed a complaint before the police. The police during the course of investigation have filed charge sheet only 5 after getting the report of the handwriting expert that the document, which the petitioner is relying upon as the genuine document, is found to be a forged document. Therefore, the de-facto complainant has realized about the offences committed by the petitioner in respect of forgery of document only when the report of the handwriting expert was received and on receiving the report, charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken. Therefore, it cannot be said that taking cognizance of the offence is barred by limitation. On this count, the case against the petitioner cannot be quashed.
12. The other ground on which quashment was sought for is that the dispute between the parties is a civil nature and has given a colour of criminal case. Merely because a suit has been filed by the de-facto complainant in O.S.No.56 of 2009, automatically the dispute does not become purely civil in nature and that filing of a criminal case is barred. Certain acts will lead to filing of civil and criminal cases and certain acts will culminate in filing of civil cases only, whereas there could be some actions which result in filing of only criminal cases. The relief sought for by the de-facto complainant's family in O.S.No.56 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil 6 Judge, Husnabad, is for grant of perpetual injunction. The issue before the criminal Court is whether or not injunction can be granted. The issue raised by the de-facto complainant and investigated by the police in this case is whether the document, which is being claimed by the petitioner, is executed by the father of the de-facto complainant is genuine or forged. The police have concluded that the signature of the father of the de-facto complainant on the said document was forged one.
13. Therefore, basing on the material before the Court there is a strong, clear and prima facie case against the petitioner. Therefore, the case cannot be quashed summarily.
14. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 19.09.2022 ES