Dismissed

N. Ravindranath Reddy, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2014CRLRC/2490/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a criminal revision dismissed the petitioners' appeal against the trial court order denying discharge. The court held that prima facie material existed to frame charges despite the investigating officer not collecting all forged documents, citing Supreme Court precedents on the limited scope of revision courts.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.

N. Ravindranath Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI

¶2

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 2490 OF 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Revision Case under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) by the petitioners/A1 to A5 is directed against the orders dated 13.11.2014 of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendra Nagar passed in Crl.M.P. No.1839 of 2014 in C.C. No.31 of 2014 (Old C.C.No.167/2007) filed under Section 239 of the CrPC by the petitioners/A1 to A5 requesting for their discharge.

¶5

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners/A1 to A5 and of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have carefully perused the material record.

¶6

3. Now the points for determination in the Criminal Revision Case are as under:

¶7

(1) Whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint, charge sheet and the evidence collected in support of the same do disclose prima facie the commission of any offence much less the alleged offence and make out a case against the petitioners/A1 to A5?

¶8

(2) Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside in the facts stated and circumstances urged by the petitioners/A1 to A5?

¶9

4. POINTS:

¶10

4. (a) The prosecution case including the substance of the

¶11

charge is this: ‘The de-facto complainant is an agriculturist and that he is the owner and possessor of the lands of the extents of Ac.2.06 guntas and Ac.2.38 guntas respectively in S.Nos.120 and 122 of Narsingi village. A1 is a Private Limited Company. A1 to A4 had fabricated false affidavits and declarations in the name of the de-facto complainant pertaining to his land in Survey No.120 and in the name of one Shabhad Venkatesham stating that he is the owner of the said land in Survey No.122 of Narsingi village and got the same notarised through A5 on 10.05.2005 and submitted to HUDA for approval of layout for residential houses. A1 to A4 had had also forged the signature of de-facto complainant on the applications for layout permission and submitted to HUDA on 03.06.2005. The true facts are that the de-facto complainant is the real owner and possessor of the lands in Survey Nos.120 and 122 of Narsingi village. The stamp papers for the affidavits and the declarations were purchased in the name of A3. The same were notarized by A5 and were submitted by A1 to A4 to HUDA on 03.06.2005. Basing on the forged signatures of the complaint on the application, affidavit and declaration and without any registered sale deed or any other registered document, HUDA had granted tentative approval to the accused on 22.09.2006. HUDA had never bothered to look into the facts to find out as to who is the real owner of the land and had granted tentative layout basing on the false affidavits and declarations submitted by the accused.’

¶12

4. (b) That being the gravemen of the charge, the case of the petitioners/A1 to A5 in support of their request for discharge is this: ‘The complainant had approached A1 with an intention to sell the property. A1 had agreed to purchase the property of the de-facto complainant for a consideration of Rs.43 lakhs. A1 had paid Rs.13 lakhs on the day of execution of the agreement dated 24.09.2003. A1 had promised to pay the balance sale consideration within one year from the date of the

¶13

execution. A1 had also paid the balance sale consideration within time. As the property rates have skyrocketed, the complainant with a mala fide intention did not accept the agreed amount taken by him and despite the request made by A1 he had refused to execute the sale deed in favour of A1. Having been vexed with the attitude of the de-facto complainant, A1 had filed a civil suit in O.S. No.704/2006 on the file of the Court of the learned IV Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar. The physical vacant possession of the land was delivered to A1. The de-facto complainant, with an intention to squeeze illegal sums, had filed a false criminal case. The accused are in no way concerned with Survey No.122 which belongs to Shabhad Venkatesham, who is the pattedar and the possessor. The de-facto complainant had suppressed the facts in regard to the agreement of sale and the civil suit for specific performance. No specific overt acts are attributed to A1 to A5. The forged affidavits and documents, which were allegedly submitted by A1 to A4 to HUDA, are not even collected and appended to the final report filed by the Investigating Officer. The specimen signatures of the accused concerned are not collected and no FSL report was obtained to show that any material documents are forged. Hence, even if the allegations in the complaint, the charge sheet and the evidence collected are taken into consideration in entirety, still no case is made out against the petitioners. The continuation of the proceedings against them is an abuse of process of Court and that the trial Court had erroneously dismissed their application for discharge.’ The pleaded case of the A1 to A5 was reiterated at the time of hearing.

¶14

4. (c) On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the statements of the witnesses, particularly, the members of the Staff of HUDA would show that there is a prima facie case against the accused and that at this stage the trial Court is not required to examine the substance and the reliability of

¶15

evidence and that when the trial Court finds that there is prima facie material to frame a charge and finds that there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence triable, the Court has to frame a charge and that for framing a charge any detailed examination of evidence is not necessary and that the well considered order of the trial Court is sustainable and does not call for interference.

¶16

4. (d) I have given earnest consideration to the facts and the submissions. I have perused the copy of the agreement of sale, the copy of the plaint in the suit for specific performance, the complaint which was referred to at the first instance by the Magistrate to the Police, the final report and the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. I have also perused the counter of the State filed through the Public Prosecutor before the trial Court. On such perusal, particularly, the statements of the members of Staff of HUDA, which are recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, this Court is of the considered view that the contents of the said material documents do disclose a prima facie case and make out a case against the accused for the offences for which the charge sheet is filed. No doubt the Investigating Officer had failed to collect necessary documents from HUDA, particularly the documents which are allegedly forged, but there are statements of witnesses, who are cited as witnesses in the list of witnesses appended to the charge sheet, and further, it appears from the order of the trial Court that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had mentioned before the trial Court during the course of hearing that steps would be taken for producing the other evidence, if necessary.

¶17

4. (e) In K. Ramakrishna and others Vs. State of Bihar

¶18

and another^[1] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that questions regarding the sufficiency or reliability of the evidence to proceed further

¶19

are not required to be considered by the trial Court under Section 239 of the CrPC and this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC and that ordinarily the criminal proceedings which are instituted against the accused must be tried and taken to logical conclusions under the CrPC and this Court should be reluctant to interfere with the proceedings at an interlocutory stage. Further, in the decision in Manakshi Bala Vs.

¶20

Sudhir Kumar^[2] , the Supreme Court held that if on consideration, examination and hearing the Magistrate finds the charge groundless he has to discharge the accused in terms of Section 239 of the CrPC; conversely, if he finds that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable by him he has to frame a charge in terms of Section 240 of the CrPC and that the finding regarding commission of offence or otherwise cannot be recorded on the basis of affidavit evidence and that at the time of framing of charge the Court cannot usurp the functions of a trial Court to delve into and decide upon

¶21

the respective merits of the case. In R.S. Nayak v. A.R.Anutla y^[3] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while pointing out the differences between Sections 227, 239 and 245 of the CrPC had finally held that notwithstanding the differences in the provisions of law, there is no scope for doubt that the stage at which the Magistrate is required to consider the question of framing of charge under Section 245(1) is a preliminary one and the test of “prima facie” case has to be applied. In

¶22

Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtr a^[4] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question whether a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and had also considered scope of the power under Section 227 of the CrPC and had held as follows: ‘In exercising powers under Section 227 of the CrPC, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima

¶23

facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceed with the trial.’ It is also held that the Judge has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting trial.

¶24

5. In the well considered view of this court, the legal position obtaining if applied to the facts of the case would suggest that the learned Judge of the trial Court had taken a correct view having regard to the legal position. Having due regard to the facts and the legal position obtaining, this Court finds that the accused could not make out valid and sufficient grounds calling for interference with the impugned order or for their discharge.

¶25

6. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal

¶26

Revision Case shall stand closed.

¶27

____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J

¶28

Date: 17.12.2014 MVA

¶29

[1] (2000) 8 SCC 547

¶30

[2] 1994 SCC (4) 142 [3] AIR 1986 SC 2045(1)