Dismissed

S.v.Ramana Murthy v. K.Raj Shekhar,S/o. Sri K.Kumaravelu

Telangana HC21 Dec 2011CRLP/3598/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for cheating and forgery. The Court held that specific allegations of impersonation and fabrication of ownership documents rendered the dispute criminal rather than purely civil. Delay in filing the complaint was noted as a matter for trial, not quashing.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

S.v.Ramana Murthy Vs K.Raj Shekhar,S/o. Sri K.Kumaravelu — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3598 of 2009

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.257 of 2009 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

¶4

Respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed a private complaint before the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and he committed the offences of cheating, impersonation, forgery, fabrication of documents etc., punishable under Sections 191, 200, 205, 209, 406, 420, 423, 465 and 468 IPC. There upon, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint for such offences and the same is numbered as C.C.No.257 of 2009.

¶5

In the said complaint, respondents 1 and 2 stated that they purchased a plot bearing No.8 in Tahirville Colony, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, with their hard earned money and that the petitioner is a practicing Chartered Accountant and owner of plot No.1, which is situated

¶6

opposite to their plot. They further stated that the first respondent in pursuit of his vocation went to a foreign country, Jamaica, and was sending monies to the second respondent for the purpose of construction of a house on their plot and the second respondent passed on the said monies to the petitioner. They further stated that after some time, the petitioner was showing the signs of seeking transfer of plot in his name so as to retain the structure constructed on it but the first respondent came to India on vacation during October 2008 and when he along with the second respondent visited the plot, he found that a board was put up in the plot claiming to be owned by the petitioner. When they orally requested the petitioner, he turned volte-face and claimed that both the plots belong to him pursuant to an exchange deed alleged to have been executed vide document No.5354 of 1994, dated 24.10.1994. They further stated that on the aforesaid date, the first respondent was not in India and was at Dubai and the same is evident from the entries in the passport and that he got executed the said document by impersonation. They further stated that the petitioner filed O.S.No.359 of 2005 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by impleading the first petitioner as a defendant represented through a General Power of

¶7

Attorney, by name, K.S.Ramaiah. There is no such GPA holder, by name, K.S.Ramaiah, to the first respondent. They also stated that the petitioner obtained the decree in the said suit by fraud and forgery.

¶8

In this Criminal Petition, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute is of civil nature and no case is made out against the petitioner for enquiry for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 200, 205, 209, 406, 420, 423, 465 and 468 IPC. It is submitted that in view of the decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S.No.359 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, it cannot be said that either there is impersonation or fabrication of documents. It is also submitted that several years after construction of the building, respondents 1 and 2 filed the complaint and there is no explanation for the same.

¶9

On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri G.Pedda Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that all the documents, which were sought to be relied on in proof of ownership of plot No.8 are forged and fabricated. It is further submitted that as on the date of alleged exchange deed, the first respondent was in

¶10

abroad and the same is evident from the entries in the passport. It is further submitted that the petitioner obtained the decree in O.S.No.359 of 2005 by fraud, by showing the first respondent as a party represented by General Power of Attorney, by name, K.S.Ramaiah. It is also submitted that no such power of attorney was given to K.S.Ramaiah by the first respondent and by playing fraud, without serving notice on the first respondent, he obtained the said decree.

¶11

Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is of civil nature, it is to be noticed that the petitioner is claiming plot No.8 on the exchange deed alleged to have been executed on 24.10.1994 and it is the specific case of respondents 1 and 2 that the said document is obtained by impersonation and at that time, the first respondent was at Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and the same is evident from the entries in the passport.

¶12

I have also perused a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.359 of 2005 filed by the petitioner in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the said suit, the first respondent was shown as defendant represented by GPA holder, K.S.Ramaiah. If litigation is to

¶13

be pursued, the party can appoint GPA. In the present case, the suit itself is filed by the petitioner/accused by showing the first respondent as defendant represented by his General Power of Attorney, by name, K.S.Ramaiah. It is the specific allegation of respondents 1 and 2 that there is no such General Power of Attorney and the petitioner obtained the decree in the said suit fraudulently.

¶14

With regard to the delay attributed to respondents 1 and 2 in filing the complaint, it is a matter to be gone into during trial and the same is also no ground to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this stage. It is also the specific case of respondents 1 and 2 that the said documents are not in their knowledge.

¶15

In that view of the matter, as much as there is a specific allegation of impersonation and forgery, it cannot be said that the dispute is of civil nature so as to entertain this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.257 of 2009.

¶16

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Criminal Petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶18

21^st DECEMBER, 2011.

¶19

kvni

S.v.Ramana Murthy v. K.Raj Shekhar,S/o. Sri K.Kumaravelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.Ramana Murthy v. K.Raj Shekhar,S/o. Sri K.Kumaravelu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Industrial Associates, 4-3-25, 3465, Dandu Chambers, Vs The deputy Registrar of Co.op.Societies/

Aswathanaryana Rao Vs the Secy. A.P. Burgula Ramakrsihna Rao

P.Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary

Genius Online.Net and Another Vs the State of A.P. and Another

Mellaboyina Hemanth Hari Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Velivela Sivaparvathi , Prasanthi, Vs State of A.P.