Allowed

Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana , Chinna v. The State of Ap., through Ps. III Town L Ando

Telangana HC19 Oct 2012CRLP/284/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against A-1 for cheating and forgery. The Court held that merely handing over photostat copies of title deeds to a broker for selling property is insufficient to constitute offences when there is no evidence of further acts in collusion or use of those copies for forgery.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings initiated against A-1 in C.C.No.32 of 2008 quashed.

Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana , Chinna Vs The State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.284 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C.No.32 of 2008 (C.C.) on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry registered for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420 and 465 r/w 34 IPC and Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act, in favour of the petitioner herein.

¶4

2. The petitioner herein is A-1 and the second respondent herein is the defacto complainant in the C.C. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the criminal case.

¶5

3. It is necessary to briefly note the prosecution version for proper appreciation of the petition, it is as follows:

¶6

The defacto complainant, A1 to A-9, A-11 and A-12 are the residents of Rajahmundry and Anaparthi as the case may be whereas A-10 is a resident of Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

¶7

The defacto complainant got 312 square yards of site in Sy.No.117 in Katheru village, Rajahmundry Rural, with a tiled house. He intended to sell the property in consequence of which he gave Photostat copies of the relevant documents to A-1 who was a broker. In turn A-1 brought a person to whom the property was shown. But later that third party did not approach the defacto complainant. However A-1 returned the Photostat copies of the relevant documents given to him to the defendant complainant. Consequently in December, 2004 the defacto complainant sold the site including the house property to one Vallabhaneni Ramaprasad, an agent of Kesineni Travels for Rs.3,50,000/- under a registered sale deed. Later the defacto complainant came to know that A-12 sold the house property to A-4 and various other persons having forged the signatures of himself (the defacto complainant) and affixing fake photos. Further A-4 obtained loans from the Bank of India, Seethampet Branch, Rahmundry by

¶8

mortgaging the same property in which A-5 and A-6 signed as attestors. Thereby the defacto complainant gave report to the SHO of III Town police Station, Rajahmundry on the basis of which the case was registered in Crime No.153 of 2006 on his file for the alleged offences.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for A-1 has contended that except the allegation that the defacto complainant handed over the relevant Photostat copies to A-1 for the purpose of bringing prosecutive purchaser or purchasers of his property, which were admittedly returned to the defacto complainant later, there is absolutely no basis to say that A-1 indulged in giving those Photostat copies to the other accused and creating fake documents for the property of the defacto complainant in collusion with others by reason of which the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out so far as A-1 is concerned and accordingly the proceedings so far as A-1 are concerned shall be quashed.

¶10

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

¶11

6. Absolutely there are no specific allegations against A-1. Simply because the defacto complainant handed over the Photostat copies of his title deeds to A-1 for the purpose of bringing prosecutive purchasers, that alone is not sufficient to constitute the alleged offences. There should be evidence of conducting necessary acts in furtherance of giving the Photostat copies to A-1 which in fact is absent here. Thereby it is not proper to prosecute A-1 for the alleged offences, if it is done it is nothing but abusing the process of law and curtailing his life and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution. 7. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings initiated against A-1 in C.C.No.32 of 2008 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Rajahmundry.

¶12

G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

¶13

Date: 19-10-2012

¶14

YCR

Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana , Chinna v. The State of Ap., through Ps. III Town L Ando

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madireddi Lakshmi Narayana , Chinna v. The State of Ap., through Ps. III Town L Ando

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

Sri Sairam Granites repby its Proprietrix Inturi Bhramaramba Vs M/s. Shriram City Union Fiance Ltd.

S.Venkata Ramana, Vs The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor

G.Lingam Vs Uppala Srinivas

Dr. Shankhabrata Bagchi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alladi Narasimha Rao, (A1) Vs M/s. Core Tree Solutions Private Limited

Palla Ramachandra Rao Vs The State of Ap.,through Kanigiri Ps.,Kanigiri