Dismissed

Madathala Srinivasa Reddy v. The State of A.P.

Telangana HC5 Oct 2012CRLP/554/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding offences of forgery and cheating, the court held that the pendency of a civil suit does not invalidate a prima facie criminal case based on police reports of creating false documents. The court directed the investigation officer to adopt Section 41A Cr.P.C. procedures instead of arresting the accused. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition dismissed; direct summing to Investigation Officer to adopt Section 41A Cr.P.C.; miscellaneous petitions pending closed.

Madathala Srinivasa Reddy Vs The State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.554 of 2012

¶3

October 05, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Madathala Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And The State of A.P. represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. And another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.554 of 2012

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Criminal Petition has been preferred by the petitioner-sole accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to quash proceedings in Crime No.130 of 2011 on the file of Kanigiri Police Station, Prakasam District registered for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

¶12

Whereas the petitioner herein is the accused, the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the Crime. For convenience sake, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the Crime.

¶13

The case of the prosecution is as follows.

¶14

The defacto complainant is the joint owner of land admeasuring Acs.4.12 cents in Survey No.412/2 situated at Kanigiri in Prakasam District. They purchased the property under registered sale deed and they have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. With an intention to grab Acs.0.38 cents in Survey No.412/2, the accused brought into existence a registered document dated

¶15

18.8.2010 in his name impersonating some other person as Madathala Gangi Reddy, who died more than ten years ago, as the vendor of the property. Under the guise of such brought up document and having political back up in the village, the accused is threatening the defacto complainant and other owners of the property to kill them not to go to the land.

¶16

Learned counsel for the accused would contend that the accused is the owner of the property, that the accused filed O.S.No.1292 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri which has been pending, that the matter is purely civil in nature and that as a counter blast the defacto complainant got filed this case.

¶17

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant has opposed the petition. He contends that the allegations made by the defacto complainant are true and that when the investigation of the case is pending, it is not proper to quash the matter at this stage.

¶18

What is important is that the defacto complainant gave a comprehensive report to the Police with certain allegations of creating a false registered document by the impersonation of the so called vendor of it in respect of the property of the defacto complainant. Simply because the suit filed by the accused is pending, that by itself does not mean that the report given by the defacto complainant is untrue. When there are civil and criminal liabilities in respect of an issue both civil suit and criminal case can be entertained. Consequently it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to examine relevant documents and ascertain as to the ownership of the property before coming to any conclusion about the complicity of the accused in the case. Till that time the Investigating Officer should not resort to even arrest of the accused. In other words, unless necessary material is there with regard to the material allegations the question of his arrest does not arise. Hence the petition is not tenable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Investigating

¶19

Officer should adopt the procedure laid down in Section 41A Cr.PC.

¶20

The criminal petition is, therefore, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.

¶21

__________________________________ (G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J) October 05, 2012 YS

Madathala Srinivasa Reddy v. The State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madathala Srinivasa Reddy v. The State of A.P.

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

Pandranki Giri Babu, Vs Sri P.Rama Rao

Ejaz Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sk. Bairunbee, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Deva Sateesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhogapuram Krishnamurthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bogi Styavathi , Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh