Dismissed

Smt. K.Shilpa, Manikonda, R.R.District v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyd and Another

Telangana HC11 Oct 2018CRLP/2271/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner, alleging she was only an attestor. The court distinguished precedents, holding that due to her active association and knowledge, guilt must be determined by trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of criminal proceedings against the petitioner refused.

Smt. K.Shilpa, Manikonda, R.R.District Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

Criminal Petition No.2271 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner/A3 seeks to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.547 of 2007 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, R.R.District.

¶5

2a) Brief facts of the complaint allegations are that complainant had purchased plot bearing No.44 in Sy.No.135 admeasuring 500 sq. yards situated at Brindavan Colony, Narsingi village from Brindavan Co-operative House Building Society and obtained registered sale deed dated 06.04.1968 vide document No.489/1968 in the name his father M.Venkata Subbaiah Naidu who died intestate on 20.12.1993.

¶6

b) The complainant and his family members had certain loan transactions with Gangineni Laxmaiah Naidu and his sons—G.Chandra Sekhar and G.Ranga Rao (Financiers). He came to know that recently the younger brother of G.Laxmaiah Naidu—Mekapati Balaramaiah Naidu and his son and daughter viz. Mekapati Suresh Babu and K.Silpa (A3) in collusion with the aforesaid financiers created a sale deed dated 07.08.2006 in the name of K.Krishna Reddy wherein it was mentioned that complainant’s father died on 25.05.2002 and Mekapati Balaramaiah Naidu and his son—M.Suresh Babu are his legal heirs and they have absolute right to sell the property. He also came to know that they have obtained a false family member certificate from the concerned MRO misrepresenting that his father Venkata Subbaiah Naidu has only one son

¶7

¶8

and later it was cancelled on 06.02.2007 after bringing real facts to his knowledge.

¶9

c) Basing on the said complaint, the police of Narsingi PS registered a case in Cr.No.80/2007 and after investigation filed charge sheet which was taken cognizance and registered as C.C.No.547 by the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, R.R.District for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶10

Hence, the instant quash petition.

¶11

Heard arguments of Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (TS) for respondent No.1. Notice sent to R2 was served, but there is no representation on his behalf.

¶12

Seeking quashment of the proceedings, learned counsel for petitioner would strenuously argue that petitioner/A3 is the married daughter of A1 and she was only an attestor in the sale deed executed by her father in favour of one K.Krishna Reddy and even if charge sheet allegations are presumed to be true, no offence could be made out against her except as she was only the attestor of the sale deed. Learned counsel citing the judgments in M.Ali Baig and others v. Kottala Sanjeeva Reddy and others¹ ; Cheedella Padmavathi (died) per LRs. and others v. Chedella Lakshminarasimha Rao (died) per LRs. and others² and Ravada Appala Reddy and another v. Kadambari Sarojini Devi and others³ , vehemently

¶13

1 2014 (5) ALT 608

¶14

2 2015 (5) ALT 634

¶15

3 2015 (5) ALT 552

¶16

¶17

argued that the attestor of a document need not avouch for the contents. Therefore, petitioner/A3 cannot be held guilty of any of the charges. He would further submit that the petitioner is a married lady and now residing in abroad and since there is no prima facie case against her, the criminal proceedings may be quashed.

¶18

In oppugnation, learned APP argued that the petitioner/A3 is not a mere attestor of the document and on the other hand, she is the daughter of A1 and sister of A2 and all of them colluded together and sold the property to K.Krishna Reddy (LW2) falsely representing as if the property belonged to accused. Admitting that in normal circumstances an attestor need not avouch for the contents of documents which he attested, he would however argue, in this case petitioner/A3 is not a mere attestor but a close relative of other two accused and actively associated with them and committed the offences and therefore in the charge sheet it is specifically mentioned that herself and another attestor having full knowledge that the complainant is the owner of the property helped the other accused to execute the sale deed and attested the document. Therefore, the petitioner/A3 cannot plead innocence. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶19

On a conspectus of material on record, I find force in the submission of learned APP. It is true that going by the definition of term ‘ attestation ’ incorporated in Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act which says that the role of attestor in relation to an instrument means, he has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument and attestor

¶20

¶21

signs the instrument in the presence of the executant, one can say that generally the attestor need not avouch for the contents of the document which he attested. However, in this case, having regard to the close relationship among the accused, petitioner/A3 cannot be viewed simply as an attestor. As rightly pointed by the learned APP, in the charge sheet it is alleged that petitioner/A3 and another attestor having full knowledge that the complainant is the owner of the property helped A1 and A2 to sell away the property and attested the sale deed. It is in that context, the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 471 and 468 IPC. In the considered view of this Court, guilt or innocence of the petitioner/A3 can be determined only after full-fledged trial. Therefore, at this stage proceedings cannot be quashed. The cited decisions will not help the cause of the petitioner/A3.

¶22

The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶24

stand closed.

¶25

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶26

Date: 11.10.2018 Murthy

Smt. K.Shilpa, Manikonda, R.R.District v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyd and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K.Shilpa, Manikonda, R.R.District v. the State of a.P.,Rep.by P.P.,High Court, Hyd and Another

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

Mukesh Kumar,I.R.S Vs G.Srinivas Reddy and Another

Smt. Vijaya Kumari Vs Small Industries Development Bank of India

Marri Siva Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the

Gattu Rajeswari, Khammam and 2 Othrs., Vs Govt. of Ap., Rep Pp and Anr.

Ganga Bharathi Educational Society(Littkle Garden School) Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Musuka Veeramallu Vs The Government Of India