Dismissed

Katam Nagamani, v. The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC14 Dec 2011CRLP/1910/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench rejected the petitions for quashing of FIRs registered in Krishna District for creating false documents and title deeds. The court held that since multiple documents were involved and the matter was under investigation, it should not interfere, denying relief against the petitioners who are document writers.

What did the court decide?

Relief for quashing the FIRs rejected; Police directed to proceed with investigation. Noted Smt. Nagamani's bail and issued directive regarding arrest of K. Venkata Rama Kishore under Section 41 CrPC.

Katam Nagamani, Vs The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1883, 1899, 1909 & 1910 OF 2009

¶3

Date: 14.12.2011

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1883 OF 2009: Between: Katam Nagamani and another …..Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1899 OF 2009: Between: K.Venkata Rama Kishore …..Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1909 OF 2009: Between: K.Venkata Rama Kishore

¶5

…..Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another

¶8

…..Respondents

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1910 OF 2009:

¶10

Between:

¶11

Katam Nagamani and another

¶12

…..Petitioners

¶13

And

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another

¶15

…..Respondents

¶16

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶18

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1883, 1899, 1909 & 1910 OF 2009

¶19

COMMON ORDER:

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners in all these four petitions, the learned counsel for second respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶21

2. These four criminal petitions i.e. Crl.P.No.1883, 1899, 1909 and 1910 of 2009 are filed for quashing four F.I.Rs. in Crime Nos.276, 268, 267 and 275 respectively of Gannavaram Police Station, Krishna District registered for various offences relating to creation of false documents i.e. false sale deeds or title deeds and also other connected offences.

¶22

3. Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.1883 and 1910 of 2009 are K.Nagamani and K.Venkata Rama Kishore. Both are said to be document writers belong to Gannavaram Mandal in Krishna District. Petitioner in Crl.P.Nos.1899 and 1909 of 2009 is K.Venkata Rama Kishore.

¶23

4. A perusal of the complaints given in the four F.I.Rs. would show that the de facto complainants claimed that certain immovable properties belong to them quoting their source of title and the other accused in all the said cases with the help of these two petitioners created various sale deeds showing as if the properties belong to one M.N.Krishna Appa Rao and K.Lakshmi Divya and that they executed the sale deeds in favour of the other offenders in respect of very same immovable properties claimed by the de facto complainants. Thus in substance the grievance of all the de facto complainants is that the other accused in the above cases with the help of these two petitioners who are document writers created the above false documents.

¶24

5. Sri V.R.Avula mainly contended that petitioners are only document writers and that they draft only on the instructions given by the parties who come to them and therefore they cannot be expected to know about the title to the property and consequently they cannot be held guilty of creating false documents if ultimately persons who purport to be vendors do not have title to the properties. Sri V.R.Avula went to the extent of saying that if these mere allegations are permitted, there will not be any end to them and even professionals like lawyers can also be dragged in. It is true that his above contention sounds forceful but only apparently in this case.

¶25

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that this is not a case where a single document is involved but the de facto complainants have alleged that several documents which are said to be false documents have been created and the allegation is that these two document writers also colluded with the main offenders and that the matter is still pending investigation and therefore this Court should not interfere.

¶26

7. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it may be noted that in each case several documents are said to have been created showing M.N.Krishna Appa Rao and K.Lakshmi Divya as the vendors. This is not a case where a single document is said to have been created in which case the petitioners contention would merit acceptance. Having regard to the number of documents involved I am of the opinion that this Court should not interfere in the matter and allow the police to go ahead with the investigation. In the circumstances the relief for quashing the F.I.Rs. is rejected.

¶27

8. It is brought to my notice that Smt.K.Nagamani obtained bail in all the matters. The concerned police may keep in view Section 41 of the

¶28

Cr.P.C. in taking a decision about arrest of other petitioner K.Venkata Rama Kishore.

¶29

9. All these petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶30

___________________________ JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶31

14^th December, 2011 Tjmr

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR

¶33

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1883, 1899, 1909 & 1910 OF 2009

¶34

DATE: 14.12.2011

Katam Nagamani, v. The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Katam Nagamani, v. The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perikala Bhaskara Rao Vs the State and Another

State rep. by Inspector of Police Vs Gorusetti Venkateswara Rao

P.Subhash Chandra Bose, Vs The State of A.P.

Dr.B. Ranga Rao, Vs The STate

Veeresh Goud, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh,.

D.S. Nageswara Rao Vs D. Silpa