Allowed

M. Lakshma Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021CRLP/1973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash a First Information Report and criminal case. The Court held that the dispute regarding property title and encroachment was purely civil in nature, as evidenced by a pending civil suit, and lacked allegations of criminal breach of trust or forgery.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in Crime No. 80 of 2021 and the related investigation were quashed.

M. Lakshma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTIGE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1973 OF 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Itrl. Lakshma Reddy, S/o Late [vl. Narayana Reddy, Aged about^{58 yeary,O9q.} Employee, F/o H.No.11-20411 , Shanthinagar, Patancheru^{Townand Mandal,} Sanga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶8

,PETITIONERYACCUSED

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,^{HighCourt buildings,} Hyderabad.

¶11

Mohammed Omairuddin Siddiqui, S/o,Late^{[/ohammed Saleemuddin Siddiqui'} Aged about 22yearc, Occ. Student, R/o^{H.No.8-1-401B.112and 13, NewSamatha} Colony, Seven Tombs, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the l\rlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petitio?, the HighCourtmaybe pleased} to call for the records^pertaining to the^{F.l.R.No.8O of 2021,dated 06.02.2021 on the} file of Patancheru Police Station, Sanga Reddy^{and quash the same.}

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances^stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased} to stay of all further^proceedings in^pursuant to the F.l.R.No.8O^{ot 2021 on the file of} Patancheru Police Station dated 06.02.2021 against the^petitioner.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2021

¶17

Between:

¶18

[rlohammed Omairuddin Siddiqui, S/o Late Mohammed Saleemuddin, Aged about²² years, Occ. Student, R/o H.No.8-1-401P112 and 13, New Samatha Colony, Seven Tombs, Hyderabad.

¶19

.. Petitioner/2nd RespondenUDefacto Complainant

¶20

AND

¶21

N/. Lakshma Reddy, S/o Late tV. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 59^years, Occ. Employee, FYo H.No.'1 1-20411, Shanthinagar, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶22

... Res ponde nUPetitio ne r/Acc u sed

¶23

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court buildings, Hyderabad.

¶24

. . . Respondent

¶25

¶26

Petition under sec :ion^{482 of cr.P.c praying that in the circumstances.stated} in the Memorandum of^{G'ounds of Criminal Petition, the High Coun maybe pleased} to vacate the Ex-parte^{ir terim stayorder in l.A.No.1of 2O21dated 17-03-202'.land} be^pleased to^{dismisst re subject criminal petitionand be pleased to passsuch} further or, other orders^{a ; this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper'}

¶27

ThisPetitionconingonforhearing,uponperusingtheMemorandumof GroundsofCriminalPeitionanduponhearingtheargumentsofSmt.Y.L.Siva Kalpana Reddy,^{Advocae for the Petitionerand'the Public Proseoutor on behalf of} the Respondent^{No.1an j of Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.}

¶28

The Court made the^{foll twing:ORDER}

¶29

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEK' LAKSHMAN}

¶30

CRIMIN AL PTITI^{ON No.l973oF 2021}

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Criminal^{Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of} Criminal Procedure,^{1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No'80 of} 2021 of Patancheru^{Police Station,Sanga Reddy District'}

¶33

The petitioner^{herein is soleaccused in the aforesaid crime'} The offences alleged^{againsthim are underSections- 465' 468'471'420'} 406 and 506 ofIPC'

¶34

Respondent^{No.2 herein has fileda complaint under Section -} 200 of the CI.P.C'^{and the samewas referredto PatancheruPolice Station} underSection-156(3)ofCr.P.C.whointurnregisteredtheaforesaid cr1me.

¶35

The contents^{of the complaintare as follows:}

¶36

i) Mohd. Qutubuddin^{is great grand-fatherof respondentNo'2'}

¶37

ii) Great^{grand-fatherof respondentNo'2is original ownerof total} land admeasuring^{As.13-24 guntas in Survey Nos'li4' 115' 121' 122'} 136, 137,139^{and 149, situated at PatancheruVillage and Mandal having} purchased through^{registered MuntakhabNo'17 4 of 1296 Fasli'}

¶38

iii) After the^{death of Mohd'} Qutubuddin,^{the aforesaidproperty} was devolved^{upon his son, Mohd' Hassanuddin,and again after the} death of Mohd.^{Hassanuddin,it devolved upon Mohd'Munawaruddin'}

¶39

iv) Respondent^{No.2 and his siblingsare the grandchildrenol} Mohd. Munawaruddin.

¶40

¶41

KL,J Crl.l,. N0.1973 of202t

¶42

v) The fa her of petitioner, late M. Narayana Reddy, encroached the aforesaid prol )erty for wrongful gains.

¶43

vi) Durinl , the life time of father of petitioner filed a suit stating that he is the tenr nt ofthe atbresaid property. but cluring the proceedings he admitted that te was the encroacher ol the said propeny and later on he filed a case ur der Inams Abolishment Act vide flle No.G/13469/1969 and another case vide file No.G/l 10971]1975 and that both the said cases were dismissed^

¶44

vii) Therer.fter, the petitioner and his father created some false and fictitious record o grab the aforesaid property and based on such false documents, the retitioner and his father obtained Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC in the name of father of the petitioner.

¶45

viii) The I ctitious document oUtaineO'by the accused is document No.84179411980, which is actually perlains to Zaherabad Mandal as per the Distribution Register of file No.A5 l5323lI9i9 and the peritioner showing the saic document as penaining to the aforesaid property of Patancheru and b^,using the same, he got obtained ORC and sold the said property to third parlies. Thus, the petitioner and his firther not orrly cheated responde rt No.2, but also to the real owners ancl tl-re Revenue Department by cr :ating false documents.

¶46

ix) After c oming to know about the cheating of the petitioner and his father, respo rdent No.2 approached the police, but in vain and, therefore, he filed a private complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.p.C.

¶47

¶48

¶49

KI-'J Crl.P No.l973 of 2021

¶50

':/

¶51

Heard Mrs. Y. L. Siva^{Kalpana Reddy, learned counselfor the} petitioner, leamed Assistant Public^{Prosecutor appearingon behalfof} respondent No.1 and Mr.Harsh^{Asthana,leamed counsel representing} Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, leamed counsel^{for respondentNo'2.}

¶52

Perusal of the record^{would reveal that there are disputes} between the petitioner and respondent^{No.2 with regard to aforesaid} property. It further reveal that the Revenue^{Divisional Officer,Sanga} Reddy, has issued ORC dated 12.02.1982^{in favour of the fatherof the} petitioner i.e., Mr. Middela Narayana Reddy basing^{on the judgment and} decree dated 25.02.1972 in O.S.No.2O of^{1969 passed by the learned} Munsif Magistrate upheld by this^{Courtin S'A. No.386of 1974 dated} 15.12.1975. In the^judgment dated^{15.12Jg;5in S.A. No.386 of 1974,} there is specific mention that the^{lather olthe petitioner is in possession} of the properly. Vide order^{dated18.02.2021,the learnedSpecial} Tribunal, Sanga Reddy District^{in Old Case No.A3/2488/2013, held that} since there is a civil case filed in O.S.^{No.57 of 20i9 before the Principal} District Senior Judge, Medak^{at SangaReddyon the subjectlands,the} Tribunal is nothing to deal with the^{matterwhen a suit is pending before} the Civil Cour1. On the application^{submittedby the fatherof respondent} No.2, the District Collector,^{Medak District at Sanga Reddyvide} endorsement dated 24.09 .2013^{mentioned that the request of the fatherof} respondent No.2 for correction of entries^{in Revenue Recordsin respect} of the aforesaid survey^{numbers is not considerable at this level since} ORC was already issued by^{the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year} 1980 and, therelore, advised him^{to approach the Civil Coufi'A similar}

¶53

¶54

KL,J crl.P No.l97l of202l \

¶55

endorsement wa i given on 27.02.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and others have file, I a suit vide o.S. No.57 of 2019 against the petitioner herein and other r seeking to declare the plaintitls as absolute title holders and owners oftle subject propefty, recovery ofpossession by putting the plaintiffs in ph 'sical possession anc.l declare the ORC issued in file No.B4-794linan^/80, dated \2.02.1982 on the flle of the RDO, Sanga Reddy as null r nd void and to direct the defendant Nos.20 to 23 to correct the entrir s. The said suit is pending. During the pendency of the said suit, respon lent No.2 herein has filed a complaint under Section - 200 of Cr.P.C. before the leamed Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Speciai Mobile Court) - cum - II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, and the iearned Magistrate has passed the following order on 12.01.2021: '

¶56

"After pe usin_e the petition and statetrents and documents I could not find utmost prima f'acie material. hcnce this case is to be invr stigated therefbre rcfer the casc to p.S. patancheru under Sec:ion 156 (3) Cr.p.C. fbr investigation and reporl at request of petitioner."

¶57

Referr ng to the above, the leamed counsel for the petitioner would submit th rt the leamed Magistrate having not satisfied with the statements and d, rcuments prima facie, erred in referring the matter to the police for investigation under Section - 156 (3) of Cr.p.C. Whereas, the leamed counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner herein is not a l,rotected tenant and he has created and fabricated the documents and te is contesting the suit. According to him, some fictitious docum:nts were interpolated in the revenue recorcls of the

¶58

¶59

. KL,J Crl.P. No.t973 of202l

'tr

Revenue Divisional Officer - cum - Inams Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the certified copy of the disputed Occupancy Rights dated 12,02,1982 filed by the petitioner in O.S. No.57 of 2019 which is inadmissible secondary evidence, unless and until the entire original file bearing No.B4l794lnaml80, dated 12.02.1982 is not produced before the Courl and is subjected to Forensic examination during the course of investigation. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the principle laid down in Sajana Granites, Madras v. Manduva Srinivasa Raor; Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah2; Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal3; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singha; Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiahs; and p. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana aliastHari Babu6.

¶64

The above stated facts would reveal that respondent No.2 and others have filed the above suit - O.S. No.57 of 2019 in the month of March, 2019 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession of the subject property and also to correct the entries in revenue record in respect of the subject land and also to direct defer.rdant Nos.20 to 23 to enter and maintain the names of the plaintiffs as pattadar and owner of the suit schedule propefty and also to declare the ORC in file No.B4l794llnam/80, dated 12.02.\982 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy and sale deeds bearing No.3066 of 1982, dated 29.06.1982, No.2829 of 1983, dated 01.09.198, No.2830 of 1983, dated

¶65

I 2002 (1) ALT 466 (DB)

¶66

2 AIR 2005 SC 2t l9 l ArR 200r sc 3846

¶67

4 ArR 2001 sc 3014

¶68

5 2002 (9) SCC 58l

¶69

6 ArR 2008 SC r884

¶70

¶71

Kl_,1 Crl.P. No l97l of202l

¶72

01.09.198, No. 901 of 1988, dated 31.03.1988, No.7387 of 2010, dated 31.07.2010 and No.14292 of 2017, dated 13.07.20 l7 as null and void. Thus, responde rt No.2 and others have sought to decrare the oRC as illegal and also he above said sale deeds as illegal. During the pendency of the said su t, without waiting for the outcome of the said suit, respondent No. ) has filed a complaint under Section _ 200 of Cr.p.C. with regard to tire very same arlegations. The reamed Magistrate having found that perur al of the contents of the compiaint and the documents it could not find r tmost prima facie material and hence the case has to be investigated anr referred the complaint to the police for investigation. Thus, responden i No.2 is trying to criminalize the civil proceedings.

¶73

Perusz I of the record would f'urther reveal that the said ORC was issued on 12.02.1982 and the lather of respontlent No.2 has requested the R:venue Authorities to correct the re'enrre entries alier elapse ol2l yea s. After elapse of about tive years, respondent No.2 and others have file I the above suit. A perusal of the complaint under Section - 200 ol Cr.p.C. would reveal that there are no allegations with regard to breacl L of trust and forgery. Admittedly, the said suit is pending. The ve lidity /genuinety of the ORC have to be decided by the Principal Distric Court, Medak at Sangareddy in O.S. No.57 of 2019. The leamed Marlistrate having held that perusar of petition averments and documents,^; I could not find prima facie material, erred in referring the matter to the rolice for investigation ancl the police in tum registered a case in Crime I o.80 of 2021.

-r-

KLJ Crl.P. No.l973 of202l

¶78

¶79

I //

¶80

As discussed above, there are no allegations of criminal breach of trust and forgery in the entire complaint. The disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are civil in nature. The petitioner herein is defendant No.7 in the suit O.S. No.57 ol 2019.

¶81

I l. In State of H:rnana r'. Bhajan Lal7. the Apex Coun laid down certain guidelines/parameters f'or exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:

¶82

"( I ) Where thc allegations rnade in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out , a case against the accused.

¶83

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,^justifuing an investigation by police officers under Section 156(l) ol the Code except under an order of a Magistratc within the purview of Section i 55(2) of the Code.

¶84

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or oomplaint and the evidence collected in support ol the same do not disclose the comrnission of any oflence and rnake out a case against the accused.

¶85

(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable ollence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is^permitted by^a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section I55(2) of the Code.

¶86

'. 1ts9z1^{supp.I scc 335}

¶87

¶88

(5) 'Vhere the alle-gations made in tftc Irlll or comp aint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the br sis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just ,,onclusion that there is sufficient ground for proce rding against the accused.

¶89

(6) V here there is an express legal bar engrafted in any rf the provisions of the Code or the Act conct med (under which a criminal proceeding is instif Lted) to the institution and continuance of the proce:dings and/or where there is a specific provision in th, Code or Acr concemed, providing efficacious redre s for the grievance olthe aggrieved partr.

¶90

(7)^'Vhere a criminal proceeding is manifestly attent ed with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is ma liciously instituted with an ulrerior rlotivc fbr wreal ing vengeance on thL, accused ancl rrith a r ieu, to spi e him due to private and perstlnal grudge.,,

¶91

In Ir dian Oil Corporation v. NEpC India Limiteds, the Apex court held that "while on the issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tende rcy in business circles to conveft purely civil disputes into criminal c,ses. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately prote rt the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several I rmily disputes also, leading to irretrievabre break down of marriages/fan ilies' There is also an impression that ir a person could somehow be enr rngled in a criminal prosecurion, there is likelihood of imminent settlel tent. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims.

8 (2006) 6 SCC 7j6

f--

KL.J Crl.P No. t97l of 202 r

¶96

¶97

which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.

¶98

Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that this case is squarely falls in one of the parameters laid down by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal7. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtrae the Apex Court held that this court is having power to grant protection under section - 4g2 of Cr.P.C.by assigning reasons.

¶99

In view olthe above said principle and also the discussion, the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are civir in nature. A suit vide O.S. No.57 of 2019 is pending wilh regard to the very same allegations. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.g0 of 20Zl of Patancheru Police Station cannot go on and accordingly, the same are quashed.

¶100

The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.

¶101

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the

¶102

criminal petition shall stand clos ed

¶103

e. AtR 2021 sc 1918

¶104

SD/.N.CHANORA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ,1,

¶105

¶106

SECTION OFFICER

¶107

To, 1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate^{(Speciall,4obile)at Sanga Reddy.}

¶108

The Station House Officer, Patancheru^{Police Station, Sanga Reddy.}

¶109

One CC to Smt. Y. L. Siva^{Kalpana Reddy,Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court^{for the State of Telanganaat Hyderabad} tourl 5. Two CD Copies 6. One Spare Copy - gbr +, O't\0- L' C . *) 1sL .?-^V,tL sonfit AAvoa&-^CoPuo) X-

¶110

HIGH^COURT

¶111

DATED: 2411212021

¶112

flE S lA ii:
q ..
)
C)
07 til2!)??
!.)
-*

¶113

ORDER

¶114

CRL.P.No.1973 of 2021

¶115

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION-