Dismissed

A.Chandrappa v. The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC10 Feb 2012CRLP/679/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition was filed seeking quashing of proceedings for cheating and forgery alleging manipulation of land title deeds after a loan repayment. The court held that the discrepancies warranted a full police investigation and dismissed the petition, vacating the interim stay.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed and the interim stay on the proceedings was vacated.

A.Chandrappa Vs The State of Ap.,rep by Public… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

Criminal Petition No.679 of 2012

¶3

(Dated : 10-02-2012)

¶4

Between:

¶5

A.Chandrappa S/o Sandappa and another

¶6

….Petitioners

¶7

A n d

¶8

State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and another

¶9

…Respondents

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶11

Criminal Petition No.679 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This criminal petition has been taken out under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in Crime No.2 of 2012 of Yalal P.S., Ranga Reddy District to quash the proceedings therein.

¶14

2. Facts, in brief, are:-

¶15

The 2^nd respondent-K.Rathnamma borrowed hand loan of Rs.1,10,000/- from the first petitioner-A.Chandrappa on 4.10.2010. As a security for the loan, she deposited her pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land owned by her, i.e., Ac.4-03 guntas comprising Survey No.125/a/K. She also delivered some blank papers signed by her and her son Lalappa. Few days thereafter, petitioner No.1 obtained her signatures and her son on certain documents written in English. Two months thereafter, she repaid Rs.1,10,000/- with interest in the presence of Sarpanch of the village, namely P.Ramulu at Priyadarsini Hotel, Tandur. She requested the petitioner No.1 to return the original pattadar passbooks and title deeds. The petitioner No.1 returned the passbooks through the Sarpanch of the village at Krishna Wines, Tandur. She opened the pattadar passbooks and found that they did not belong to her and therefore, she returned the same to the petitioner No.1 and requested him to handover the title deeds and pattadar passbooks which she delivered at the time of raising hand loan. The petitioner No.1 returned the same books removing photographs affixed on the

¶16

passbook and replacing with her (2^nd respondent’s) photographs. She pointed out to the petitioner No.1 that pattadar passbooks and title deeds do not belong to her. She did not find the signature of the Tahasildar on the photograph affixed in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. According to her, the photographs of some one in the title deeds were replaced with her photographs. Entertaining doubt, she got the entries in the revenue records verified and came to know that in the Pattadar column her name was deleted and the name of petitioner No.2 who is no other than the wife of petitioner No.1, was included. Therefore, she presented a report before the Station House Officer, Yalal P.S. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Yalal P.S registered a case in Crime No.2 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 465, and 466 IPC. Hence, this petition by the petitioners 1 and 2, who have been arrayed as A-1 and A-2 in Crime No.2 of 2012 with a prayer stated supra.

¶17

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶18

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not the persons who replaced the photographs in the pattadar passbooks and title deeds. He would also submit that a suit in respect of the land owned by the 2^nd respondent-complainant is pending in civil Court and therefore, invocation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners are wholly unwarranted. A further contention has been advanced that the 2^nd respondent has been set up by some financiers who are hostile to the petitioners. On these grounds, the proceedings in Crime No.2 of 2012 are sought to be

¶19

quashed.

¶20

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-complainant submits that the 2^nd respondent-complainant handed over the pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of the land owned by her to the 1^st petitioner at the time of borrowing Rs.1,10,000/-. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent-complainant repaid the amount in the presence of the Sarpanch of the village and obtained return of the title deeds and passbooks and on verification, she found that the photographs affixed in the title deeds and pattadar passbooks were replaced with her photographs and the title deeds and passbooks which she delivered at the time of lending and the passbooks and title deeds which were given to her at the time of repayment of loan were not one and the same. The petitioners manipulated the revenue records and got the name of the 2nd petitioner entered in the revenue records as owner of the land owned by the 2^nd respondentcomplainant. Therefore, the police have to ascertain the true facts and hence, investigation in Crime No.2 of 2012 cannot be interdicted at this stage.

¶21

6. The scope and ambit of powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions and several circumstances under which the High Court can exercise jurisdiction in quashing the proceedings have been enumerated. Therefore, it is unnecessary to burden the judgment by making reference to all the decisions on the point. It would suffice to state that though the powers possessed by the High Courts under the said provision are very wide but these should be exercised in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and

¶22

substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The powers have to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases, where the court is convinced, on the basis of material on record, that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to be quashed. [ S e e : Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary and others (1992) 4 SCC 305, Kurukshetra University and another v. State of Haryana and another (1977) 4 SCC 451 and State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].

¶23

7. The 2^nd respondent-complainant has furnished the names of the witnesses in her report before whom she informed the 1^st petitioner/A1 that the passbooks and title deeds delivered to her on repayment of the loan amount were not the passbooks and title deeds, which she deposited with him as security at the time of lending the amount. She also stated in her report that she got verified the revenue entries and came to know that the petitioner No.2’s name has been recorded in the revenue records by deleting her name. The Investigating Officer has to necessarily examine the Sarpanch before whom the 2^nd respondent-complainant pointed out replacement of photographs in the passbooks and title deeds handed over to her. The investigation cannot be interdicted at this stage by invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, I find that the petition lacks merits and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶24

8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. As a sequel to the

¶25

dismissal of the criminal petition, interim stay granted on 12-01-2012 shall stand vacated.

¶26

_____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.10-02-2012 RAR

A.Chandrappa v. The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Chandrappa v. The State of Ap.,rep by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perugu Parvathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sikhakolli Venkata Rama Bhaskar Rao , Ravi Vs The State

Nalmothu Prabhakarrao, Vs State of A.P.

Kummari Rajesh (A-1) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by P.P.

Gummidi Rajasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pindrala Pullaiah, (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh