Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: collusive decree in Faisal Bin Tirif, vs State Of Telangana on 1 October, 2019Matching Fragments
Since the issues involved in both the petitions are inter- connected, they are being disposed of by this common order.
The facts in brief are as under:
The averments in the report in Crime No.48 of 2018 of Moinabad Police station and the charge sheet in C.C.No.689 of 2018 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, would show that the son of the third respondent by name late Mohd. Javed Ahmed Siddiqui (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") had acquired total land to an extent of Ac.15.33 Gts., in Sy.Nos. 288/1, 289, 299, 300 and 301, situated at Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through four separate sale deeds vide document Nos. 6705/1998, dated 02.09.1998, 11202/1993 dated 17.12.1993, 3873/1994, dated 06.05.1994 and 9552/1993 dated 25.10.1993 and since then he claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later, the deceased-Javed Ahmed Siddique made a lay-out in the name of "Golden Meadows" and sold away several plots. It is said that about 95% of plots in the lay-out were in his exclusive possession and enjoyment till his death and after his demise the third respondent continued in possession of the same. The original owner i.e., the son of the 3rd respondent died on 28.01.2016, leaving behind the third respondent (mother), his wife Mrs.Rizwana Begum and his minor son Mohd. Fahed Ahmed Siddiqui as his Class-I legal heirs. During his life time, the deceased married to the accused No.1 and due to strong differences, they took divorce on 28.06.2013 before the office of the Government Kazi, Golconda, Hyderabad. After death of the deceased, accused No.1 visited the house of the third respondent for sympathy and during that period she committed theft of the original documents of the above property, jewellery, cash along with bank locker keys and also kidnapped the minor son of the deceased. A case was registered against accused No.1 vide Crime No.76 of 2016 of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad and the same is pending. The police, however, took the custody of the minor son but the original documents were in the custody of accused No.1. Taking advantage of custody of the said documents, accused No.1, criminally conspired with the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, handed over the registered sale deeds to them and also created an agreement of sale. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioners filed a collusive suit vide O.S.No.45 of 2016 before the XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, and got it referred to Lok Adalath and a settlement was arrived at. Under the guise of compromise decree, the petitioners tried to trespass into the property and a complaint was also registered before the Moinabad Police Station, vide Crime No.91 of 2017 and the same is pending. Basing on the collusive decree, the petitioners filed E.P.No.4 of 2017 before the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, and obtained possession warrant. However, the third respondent filed a Claim-Petition vide E.A.No.3 of 2017. In spite of pending the said Claim-Petition, the said Court issued warrant of delivery of possession. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent and other legal heirs of the deceased filed C.R.P.No.2429 of 2017 before this Court. By an order, dated 09.06.2017, this Court while disposing of the said revision, observed that "the executing Court ought not to have directed re-issuance of the delivery warrant while ordering notice in the stay petition in the Claim-Petition filed by the petitioners as the same would result in rendering the Claim-Petition itself infructuous. That part of the order is accordingly set aside. The executing Court shall proceed with the hearing of the Claim-Petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously." While so, on 27.10.2017 around more than 50 un-social elements along with the petitioners came to the land, trespassed over the land and threatened the watchman of the third respondent with dire consequences. The third respondent lodged a complaint before the Moinabad Police Station, for criminal trespass and the same came to be registered as Crime No.467 of 2017. In the said crime, the police filed charge sheet, which was taken on file as C.C.No.689 of 2018 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar.
Criminal Petition No.3347 of 2018 came to be filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in the above C.C. It is also stated that the petitioners tried to obtain possession of the property through Court though the Claim-Petition is still pending. The illegal act of trespass by un-social elements at the instigation of the accused persons is creating law and order problem and the third respondent and the other legal heirs of the deceased are facing threat to their life. It is further stated that accused No.1 impersonating herself as a sole surviving legal heir of the deceased, had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioners, who are very much having knowledge of the fact that the deceased was the absolute owner of the property and accused No.1 being a divorced wife of the deceased do not have any right over the property. Therefore, the Class-I heirs of the deceased filed the complaint for criminal conspiracy in obtaining the collusive decree by misrepresenting the factual aspects before the Court, criminal breach of trust and impersonating as the sole surviving legal heir to the deceased by forging false and fabricated agreement of sale, receipts and also trying to interfere with the possession of the third respondent and that the petitioners have assisted and conspired with accused No.1 while fabricating the false agreement of sale and receipts.
Now, I refer to the allegations made in both the complaints raised by the third respondent with reference to the dates and events. F.I.R.No.48 of 2018 is registered under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. on the basis of the complaint filed by the third respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and forwarded by the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.
A bare perusal of the F.I.R. and complaint show that the third respondent while referring to the pending civil litigation, alleged that the first accused is the divorced wife of her deceased son Mohd. Javed Ahmed Siddiqui and she has stolen away the divorce documents and stealthily suffered a collusive decree in favour of the present petitioners from the Lok Adalat and obtained the warrant of decree. This decree is now subject matter of adjudication before the Executing Court. To reach to a conclusion about the executability of the decree, the Executing Court will have to come to a finding whether the widow of Mohd. Javed Ahmed Siddiqui is the legal heir of her deceased husband and whether the complainant's right as legal heir of her deceased son are violated; if so, to what extent the respondent No.3 is entitled to the share of the deceased; it may also in all probabilities to come to a conclusion that at least to that extent of un-divided share of accused No.1, the sale is valid and accused Nos.2 and 3 may take that share. The Executing Court also will have to come to a finding that after the death of Javed Ahmed Siddique, who was/were in possession of the suit property. All these questions are obviously within the domain of the civil Court. At any rate, both the proceedings are factually based on these facts which are sub-judiced before the civil Court and the alleged offence of trespass cannot be independent of the said civil dispute.