Criminal petitions filed by accused purchasers challenging their liability in a case alleging collusion and document manipulation in a development agreement were dismissed. The court held that such disputes require full evidence at the trial court and are not fit for quashing.
Both criminal petitions were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2301 and 3801 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners, in both the petitions, who are A2 to A5 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 416, 409, 195 and 468 IPC in C.C.No.45 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad along with others.
The complainant/first respondent and her brother-in-law are the owners of site located at road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad measuring 1480 square yards. The complainant and her co-owner entered into development agreement on 2711-1998 with A1 for development of the site by way of construction of building consisting of several floors. A2 to A8 are purchasers of portions of the constructed property in that site from A1 under different sale deeds. There have been several suits pending between the complainant and A1 and also between the purchasers individually with the complainant and others. A supplementary agreement was entered into between the complainant and her co-owner on one hand and A1 on the other hand on 21-10-2003. It is sufficient for the purpose of this criminal petition to note that the main allegation is that there is interpolation and manipulation in the development agreement dated 27-11-1998 by way of adding the words ‘cum G.P.A’ in that development agreement and that on the basis of such interpolated document, A1 in collusion and by way of conspiracy with A2 to A8, executed several registered sale deeds in their favour individually in respect of portions of the constructed property in different floors in which A1 had no right. It is alleged in the complaint
that the civil Courts in different interim injunction petitions noticed the interpolations made in the development agreement on first page, on 4th page and in Clause 10 (1) (a) not only by way of adding the word ‘cum G.P.A’ but also inserting the word ‘deed’ fraudulently without knowledge and consent or authority of the complainant, in civil suits. The purchasers as well as the developer A1 failed to get interim reliefs in their favour. Therefore, the complainant had chosen to file the present private complaint in the lower Court against A1 to A8 alleging collusion and conspiracy among themselves. It is further alleged that subsequent to their failure to get interim orders from the civil Court, the purchasers and A1 indulged in further rectification deeds by way of changing floor numbers and also by way of creating sixth floor even though the permission was stated to be for ground plus five floors. Having regard to the definite allegations made by the complainant in the complaint about the collusion and conspiracy among A1 to A8, it would be pre-mature for this Court to conclude that the petitioners A2 to A5 are bona fide purchasers of the properties for valuable consideration from A1. It is a mater which the trial Court has to go into and decide whether the petitioners/A2 to A5 are bona fide purchasers or not or whether they acted in collusion with and in conspiracy with A1. Insofar as A2 is concerned, he is a purchaser of a portion of the constructed property in the name of his minor daughter under sale deed dated 31-1-2002 from A1.
It is contended by the counsel appearing for A2/petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3801 of 2009 that coming to know about the reality, A2 cancelled his sale deed by way of a cancellation deed dated 4-5-2005.
It is contended by the first respondent’s counsel that simply because one irregularity is cancelled by a document, A2 will not absolve himself from criminal liability in case the original sale deed dated 31-11-2002 is vitiated by way of collusion and conspiracy with A1.
I am of the opinion that this disputed questions regarding collusion, conspiracy and creation of documents and manipulation of documents are matters to be gone into by the trial Court after recording entire evidence to be let in by all the parties. Hence, I find that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the pending criminal case.
In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.
___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J
Rkk Dated: 3-2-2011
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the disputed questions regarding collusion and conspiracy in the execution of documents are suitable for quashing criminal proceedings before the trial court records evidence.
A2 to A5
Complainant
Samudrala Govindarajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
