Allowed

Joginipalli Kamalakar Rao v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC9 Apr 2021CRLP/2462/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings for forgery and cheating in a land dispute. Court quashed proceedings holding the matter civil in nature pending a specific performance suit, preventing abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Crime No.110 of 2013 against the petitioner are quashed. Miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed.

Joginipalli Kamalakar Rao Vs the State of A.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2462 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

Joginipalli Kamalakar Rao, S/o. Narayana Rao, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Vardavelli, Boinipalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

¶10

,.PETITIONERYACCUSED NO 1

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Through S.H.O., Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District, Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶13

,,,...RESPONDENT

¶14

Gopadi Kondal Rao, S/o.Veera Rao, Occ:Agriculture, R/0. Theega lag uttapa lli Village and [r,4andal, Karimangar District.

¶15

..,RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be^pleased to Quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.(FlR) No. 1 10 of 2013 on the file of Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District for the Offence u/s. 468, 469 , 470, 471 and 420 of lPC.

¶17

LA. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 2157 OF 20131

¶18

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the [\ilemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the arrest of the Petitioner/Accused No.1 in Crime No.(FlR) No.110 of 2013 on the file of Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V V Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of None appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE JUSTICE G,SRI DEVI

¶23

CRL.P.No. 2462 of 2013

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-7 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him in Crime No,110 of 2013 of Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District, which was registered against the petitioner/ A-1 and another for tl-re offences punishable under Sections 467,468, 470, 477 and 420 of I.P.C.

¶26

The facts, in issue, are as uncler:

¶27

The 2nd respondent/de facto complalnant (hereinafter referred to as "the 2nd respondent") filed a private complaint alleging therein that the petitioner/A1 with a mala fide intention fabricated an agreement of sale, dated 24.05.2011, as if it was executed by the 2"a respondent, in respect of lands in Sy.Nos .1.12/8,189 / A,1,71,,225,229, 21.9 and 198 situated at Theegalaguttapalli Village, Karimnagar District, having received advance sale consideration of Rs.9.00 lakhs and also agreeing to receive the remaining sale consideration. Basing on the said agreement of sale, the petitiorrer filed O.S.No.312 of 201,2 and obtainecl ad interim temporary injur.rction vicle t.A.No.1243 of 2012 on 22.17.2072, restraining the 2,,,1 resLronclent flom alienating the sairl property to third parties until further orclers. lt is also allegecl that the petitioner/ A1 colluded with A-2 and created the document by forging the signature of the 2nd respondent/complainant and \ _-s. _-

¶28

¶29

hence they have committed the offences under Sections 467,468, 470, 471 and 420 of LP.C. The lealned Nlagistrate referred the said private complaint to the Police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and report. The Police, Karimnagar Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.110 of 2013. The present Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said Crime.

¶30

Though notice served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf . Hence, heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/ A-1, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1't respondent and perused the record

¶31

Learned Counsel for the petitior-rer rvould submit that the contents of the complaint do not disclose any ingredients of the alleged offences. The agreement of sale was executed by the^2n't respondent by receiving advance sale consideration in the presence of four attesting witnesses. It is further submitted that the^2nd respondent himself purchased the stamp papers in the^{name of the} petitioner and prepared the agreement and that there is no question of creating the above document in collusion with A-2. It is^also submitted that if the said document is forged one, certainly,^the2na respondent should have made the witnesses as accused.^The2u'i respondent agreed to sell the lantls fell to his share after partition with his brothers. Since the 2nd respondent refused to execute^the registered sale deed by receiving the remaining sale^{consideration.} the petitioner/ A1 f iled a suit for specific performance and^obtained

¶32

¶33

interim injunction restraining the 2nd respondent from alienating the suit schedule land. The agreement of sale dated 24.05.2011 is genuine one and the 2nd respondent himself executed the said agreement of sale in the presence of four attesting witnesses and also received Rs.9.00 lakhs as advance and a civil suit is also pending and as such it apparent that the dispute is purely civil in nature. It is also submitted that filing of the complaint bv the 2nd respondent against the petitioner / A1. and another after filing of the civil suit by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent, is ill-motivated and it amounts to sheer abuse of process of law and hence the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶34

Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor while opposing the Criminal Petition submitted that whether the 2nd respondent has entered into sale agreement with the petitioner or the petitioner has created the forged and fabricated document, is the matter of evidence which will be gone into at the timt of trial and not at this stage and accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the crirninal petition.

¶35

ln Deztendra a, State of U.P.t , the Apex Court helcl as under:

¶36

"A clistinction nlust be made betn'een a civil r.t,rong anci a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."

¶37

'^{(2009) 7 scc495}

¶38

¶39

In loseph Salaaraja tts, State of Guiarat^{artd others2Hon'ble}

¶40

the Apex Court has held^as urrder:

¶41

"Thus, from the general^{conspectusof the varioussections} under which the Appeltant is being^{chargedand is to be} prosecuted would show that the^same are^{not made out even} prima facie from the Cornplainant's^{FIR. Even if the charge} sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge^{could have sti1l} examined whether the offences^alleged to^{have been} comrnitted by the Appellant^{wereprimafaciemade out from} the complainant's FIR, charge^{sheet, documents etc. or not.}

¶42

In our opinion, the matter appears^{to be purelycivil in nature.} There appears to be no cheating^{or a dishonest inducement} for the delivery of propertv or^{breach of trust by the} Appellant. The prcsent FIR is an abuse^{of process of law. The} purell, civil disputc, is sought to^{be given a colour of a} criminal offence to^{wreak vengcanceagainst the Appellant.It} does not rneet the strict^{stanc'lardof proof required to sustain} a criminal accusation.

¶43

The Appellant cannot^be allor't'ed^{to go throughthe rigmarole} of a criminal prosecution^{for longnumberof years,even} when admittedly a civil suit^has already^{been filed against the} Appellant by the Complainant-Respondent^{No. 4, and is still} subjudice. In the said suit,^{the Appellant is at libertyto} contest the same on grounds^{availableto him in accordance} with law as per the leave granted^{by Trial Court. It may also} be pertinent to mention here^{that the complainant has not} been able to show that at any^{tnaterial pointof time there was} any contract, much less any^{privityof contract between the} Appellant and Respondent No.⁴ -^{the Complainant There} was no cause of action^{to evcn lodgean FIR against the} Appellant as ucither the Complainant^{had to receive the}

¶44

'(2olt)7scc59

¶45

¶46

money nor was he in any wav instrumental to telecast "GOD TV' in the central areas o( Ahmeclabad. He appears to bc totally a stranger to the same. Appcllant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment ancl humiliatron, which cannot be permitted in accordance rvith the principles of lau,."

¶47

ln Mahammeil Ibrahim a d others as. State of Bihar and

¶48

anotheF Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:

¶49

"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or.to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."

¶50

In the instant case, a perusal of the material on record would show that the 2nd respondenlf de fnt:to complainant had agreed to sell the subject land in favour of the pctitioner/,A1 ancl also executed an agreement of sale in the presence of four attesting witnesses on 21.05.2011 after receiving advance sale consicleration of Rs.9,00,000/-. Further, since the 2nd respondent failed to execute the registered sale deed, the petitioner filed O.S.No.312 of 2072 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 24.05.2011, with regard to the subject land and the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. By an orde4 dahed23.1.1..2012, the learned Senior Civil Judge, granted interim injunction in respect of the disputed land restraining the 2"a

¶51

' 1zoool^{t scc rsr}

¶52

¶53

respondent from alienating the schedule^{proPerty to any third party} until further orders and after receiving^{the summonsin the said suit,} the 2nd respon dent / da t'acto complainarrt^{had filed the present private} complaint, which was referred to the police^{underSection 156 (3) of} CI.P.C. Therefore, as rightly contended by the^{learned Counselfor} the petitioner/ A-1, the matter apPears^{to be purely civil transaction} between the parties and the same virtually^{convertedinto criminal} proceedings and as such the party should not be^{unnecessarily} dragged to the Criminal Court. Applying^{the principlesof the Apex} Court in the judgments referred to above^{to the facts of this caseand} for the above said reasons, I am of the considered^{opinion that this is} a fit case where continuation of the criminal^{proceedings amountsto} abuse of process of Court. Further, it^{will causegreatinjusticeand} inconvenience to the petitior-rer, if such^{proceedingsare not quashed} and allowed to be continuecl.

¶54

Accordirrgly, the Criminal Petition is^{allowedand the} proceedings in Crirne No.110 of 2013 of^{Karimnagar Rural Police} Station, Karimnagar District, against^{the petitioner} /^{A-1, are hereby} quashed.

¶55

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous^{Petitions,if any, pending in}

¶56

this Criminal Petition shal1 stand dismissed.

¶57

SD/.K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRA-R ,/ ,TRUE COPY// -Z

¶58

SECTION OFFICER

¶59

To,

¶60