Dismissed

.Ponne Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra pradesh.

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2024CRLP/829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court single-judge bench dismissed a Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking to quash proceedings against A.2 to A.4 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with 34 IPC. The court held that the protest petition allegations, supported by documents prima facie establishing title, showed fabricated gift and rectification deeds over non-existing land, that the Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance, and that the petitioners' contentions were disputed questions of fact not resolvable under Section 482.

What did the court decide?

None granted; Criminal Petition dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

.Ponne Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra pradesh. — Quashing and FIR | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.829 OF 2024

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.395 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor. The petitioners herein are arrayed as A.2 to A.4 in the said C.C. 2. Originally, basing in a police report lodged by 2^nd respondent, a case in crime No.77 of 2018 of Bangarupalem police station, Chittoor district was registered against the petitioners and another, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with 34 IPC. Police, after completion of investigation, filed a final report, referring the case as mistake of fact. On receipt of notice, 2^nd respondent filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, vide Order dated 08.03.2019 in C.F.R.No.3685 of 2018, took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 read with 34

¶4

¶5

IPC against the petitioners and another. Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and that there are civil suits pending against each other. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance without conducting a proper inquiry since civil suits are pending. He submits that when civil suits are pending between both the parties in respect of the property, instead of getting the proceedings adjudicated on civil side, 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant, who is a practicing advocate, resorted in filing the criminal cases as against the petitioners with a mala fide intention. He further submits that even accepting the entire accusations to be true, no offence would be made out as against the petitioners.

¶7

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant submits that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioners to the extent that they forged and fabricated documents and the same was brought into existence with a mala fide intention to dispossess 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant from the property. The learned counsel has taken this Court to the contents mentioned in the protest petition and submits that as there are specific accusations as against the petitioners, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶9

The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for 1^st respondent-State contended that there are specific accusations as against the petitioners and the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact, which have to be decided during the course of trial.

¶10

There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give

¶11

¶12

effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that

¶13

the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana Vs. Ch.Bhajanlal and ors.¹ , wherein the Apex Court held,

¶14

“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently

¶15

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶16

¶17

channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶18

(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;

¶19

(2) 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;

¶20

(3) 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; (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

¶21

(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;

¶22

¶23

(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;

¶24

(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.”

¶25

Perused the record.

¶26

2^nd respondent filed protest petition stating

¶27

that he has landed property in survey Nos.56/2, 56/3 and 56/3A of Thumbapalyam village, Bangarupalem mandal. His father purchased an extent of Ac.0.37 cents out of Ac.0.58 cents in survey No.56/2 and an extent of Ac.0.78 cents in survey No.56/3, from one Ponne Papaiah and his sons under a registered document dated 10.05.1973, and later purchased the remaining extent of Ac.0.21 cents in survey No.56/2. The accused do not possess any land in survey No.56 and they have not

¶28

¶29

purchased any land in the said survey number. Father of 2^nd respondent also purchased an extent of Ac.0.31 cents in survey No.56/3 along with 1/8^th share in brick well from Ponne Nagamallappa and his son vide registered document dated 20.04.1989. There was a partition of joint family properties under registered partition deed dated 16.02.2000 whereunder lands in survey Nos. 56/2 and 56/3A fell to share of younger brother of 2^nd respondent by name Bussa Vijaya Bhaskar. Later, 2^nd respondent purchased the said lands under two registered documents dated 26.03.2004 and 18.11.2013, and ever since, he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute rights. He was issued E-pass book in respect of the said extent of land.

¶30

It is alleged that A.1, knowing fully well that

¶31

his father and himself along with his brothers sold away their total land in survey Nos. 56/2 and 56/3 to father of 2^nd respondent, fraudulently and with a mala fide intention, wrongfully executed a gift deed in respect of an

¶32

¶33

extent of Ac.0.76 cents in survey No.56/2 and 56/3A in favour of his son (A.2) vide registered document dated 03.07.2013 by creating a document for non-existing land in the said survey number 56/3D without any authentication, which amounts to forgery of a valuable security so also forgery for the purpose of cheating and also cheating. It is further alleged that A.1 created a registered rectification deed 20.11.2017 with a mala fide intention, rectifying the boundaries of the gift settlement deed. A.3 and A.4 attested the rectification deed knowing fully well that the said documents are created and fabricated for non-existing land and were created for wrongful gain. The land shown in the aforesaid two documents belongs to 2^nd respondent. A.1, A.2 and A.4 did not possess any land in survey No.56 or 56/2 or 56/3A.

¶34

A perusal of the allegations in the protest

¶35

petition and the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 examined by the learned Magistrate in the protest petition would go to show that having sold away the lands by A.1, his father

¶36

¶37

and brothers in favour of father of 2^nd respondent, certain documents have been allegedly fabricated by A.1 in favour of A.2 by way of gift deed and rectification deed in respect of a non-existing land. The documents 1 to 21 filed by 2^nd respondent would prima facie establish his right and title in respect of the subject land. Considering these aspects, the learned Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance holding that prima facie it is established that the accused, with a mala fide intention, created false and fabricated documents to have wrongful gain, which amounts to forgery of a valuable security so also forgery for the purpose of cheating and also cheating. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. This Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact. Truth or otherwise of the same has to be decided only during the course of trial. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits.

¶38

¶39

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is

¶40

dismissed.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

¶42

___________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶43

21.03.2024 DRK

¶44

¶45

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

¶46

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.829 OF 2024

¶47

21.03.2024

¶48

DRK

.Ponne Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

.Ponne Sudhakar v. The State of Andhra pradesh.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuchipudi Simharayalu Vs the State of Ap

Devarapalli Kishore Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Sudhakar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ponne Hari Vs The State of Andhra pradesh.

Bala Govardhan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Chandra Shekar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh