Allowed

S.N.Reddy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Dec 2021CRLP/936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings for cheating and forgery. It held that as the respondent was not the owner or in possession of the disputed property given pending civil suits, the charge sheet lacked ingredients of the offence against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C. No. 5286 of 2018 against the petitioner - accused No. 1 only were quashed.

S.N.Reddy Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{936 0F 2020}

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.N.Reddy, S/o.Venkat Reddy

¶8

..,PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, represented^{by its Public Prosecutor,High Court for the} State of Telangana at HYderabad.

¶11

Thumkunta Maheshwar,^S/o, Laxmaiah

¶12

...RES'ONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Section^{482of Cr.P.C praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the Nrlemorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High courtmay be pleased} to^quash the^proceedings in cc^{No.52B6/18on the file of court of Hon'ble lX} Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,^{at Prashanthnagar, in so far as petitionerherein} is concerned.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2020

¶15

Petition under Section 482 ol^{Cr.P.C praying thatin the circumstancesstated} in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of criminalPetition, the High court maybe pleased} to stay of all further^{proceedings in C.C.No. 52BG|201B on the file of Courtof Hon'ble} lx Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,^{at Prashanthnagar,in so far as petitioner} herein is concerned.

¶16

This Petition coming on for^{hearing, upon perusingthe [Vlemorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the argumentsof sri N.SRIDHAR} REDDY, Advocate for the Petitioner^{and of the Additional Public Prosecutoron behalf} of the Respondent No.1^and of sri^{Krishnalvlohansikharam, Advocate for the} Respondent No.2.

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICEK. LAKSHMAN} CRIMIN AL PETITTO^{NN0.9360F 2020}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

ThisCriminalPetitionisfitedunderSection-4S2oftheCodeof Criminal Procedure,^{1973,to quash the proceedings in C'C'No'5286 of} 2018 on the file of^{[X MetropolitanMagistrate,Kukatpallyagainst the} petitioner - accused^No.1 '

¶21

Heard Mr. N.^{Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the} petitioner, learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor appearingon behalf of} respondent No.l^{and Mr' S. Krishna Mohan,learned counsel for} respondent No.2.

¶22

The petitioner^{herein is accused No' I in the above C'C' The} ol'fbncesallegedagainsthimareunderSections-447,420'468and471 of IPC. The allegation^{against the petitioner is that he alongwith other} accused have^{hatcheda plan to grabthe propertyof respondentNo'2} herein i.e., house^{No.5-502 over plot No.502,admeasuring 680 square} yards forming part of^{Survey No'78 ofHafeezpet Village'} Serilingampally^{Mandal,RangaReddy District'}

¶23

Respondent^{No.2 and his wife fileda suit vide O'S' No'50 of} 2019 on the file of XV^{Additional District Judge, RangaReddy District} at Kukatpally against^{one Mr. K' Ramaswamyand othersincludingthe} petitioner herein^{seekingentbrcementof agreement of saledated} 09.11.1999 in respect^{oftheatbresaidproperty and also fbr recovery ol} possession. The^{petitioner herein is arrayed as def'endant No l9 in the} said suit. Respondent^{No.2and his wife have sought a direction to the}

¶24

¶25

¶26

petitioner - defendant No.19 to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and^put them into^possession with metes and bounds. The^{petitioner herein has also fileda suit vide} O.S. No.61 of 2018 on the file of V^{Additional Junior Civil Judge,} Kukatpally at Miyapur against respondent^{No.2, his wife and accused} No.3 for perpetual injunction and the^learned V^{Additional JuniorCivil} Judge has granted ad interim^{injunction on 28.02.2018in I'A. No. 113 of} 2018 in O.S. No.6l of 2018.

¶27

According to the learned counsel^{fbr the petitioner,the saidsuit} is pending and the interim injunction^{is subsisting. He would furlher} submit that respondent No.2 herein^{has filed an application to transfer} both the cases and try the same^{together.Thesaid petitionwasordered} and both the cases were clubbed^{andnow they are beingtried together.}

¶28

¶29

The above stated facts^{wouldreveal that there are disputes} between the petitioner and respondent^{No.2 with regard to the aforesaid} propefty. As stated above, respondent^{No.2 himself has soughta} direction to the^{petitioner - defendantNo.19in O.S. No.50 of 2019to} hand over the vacant^{possessionand put themin possession of the said} property. Thus, respondent No.2^{is not the owner of the said propefty} and he is not^{possessorof the said propefty'Therefore, the question of} trespass by the^{petitionerhereinover the aforesaidpropertydoes not} arise. Thus, this Court^{is of the consideredr,' ie\r' that the contents of the} charge sheet lack the ingredients^{of Section - 447 ofIPC.}

Perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that there is no allegation, much less specific allegation against the petitioner with regard to inducement and forgery etc. The Investigating Officer has not conducted any investigation and not examined any witness to satisSr that the petitioner has committed the cheating and forgery. In the charge sheet itself, it is mentioned that LW. 1 9 collected FSL reporl from LW. 16, in which the opinion experl has been canied out which is as under:

¶34

"thc questioned and standards clo not agree in the writing characteristics. The questioned signatures exhibir inherent signs of forgery such as slow and drarvn movement, slow speed inferior skill, defective line quality with unusual breaks, careful joining, hesitations and consciousness in the movement, medium, speed, medium skill, good line quality, slant spacing, relative proportion of letters also do not agree between standards and questioned. Location of commencement and finish of initial letter differ between questioned and standards. Execution and combination of letters 'thy' differ between standards and questioned. There are no fundamental similarities between standards and questioned. The general similarities are due to simulation. The differences in the writing characteristics are significant and sufficient to form a definite opinion.,,

¶35

Perusal of the charge sheet would furlher reveal that LW.2 is the actual owner of the aforesaid land, LW. I had purchased a plot vide P'No.502 admeasuring 680 square yarcls from one Saradha for an amount I ol Rs.2,85,000/- and got it notarized on her wi1-e name i.e., LW.2. They I t dug bore in the said plot, constructed a compound wall and two rooms. LWs. 1 and 2 wanted to sell the said plot and informed the same to accused No.2, who got accused No.3 introduced to them stating that

¶36

¶37

accused No.3 would purchase their land. Thus, there are no allegations of cheating, inducement and forgery etc. against the petitioner - accused No.1.

¶38

It is also relevant to note that the petitioner is claiming that he has purchased the land under an unregistered agreement of sale. Thus, respondent No.2 herein is neither owner of the said property, nor in possession of the said land in view of the relief sought by him in O.S. No.50 of 2019. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the contents of the charge sheet in C.C. No.5286 of 20l8lack the ingredients ofthe offences alleged against the petitioner. The parties have to wait for the out-come olthe above two suits vz., O.S. No.50 of 2019 and O.S. No.61 of 2018. l-he suit in O.S. No.50 ol20l9 is a comprehensive sr:it rvhile O.S. No.6l of 2019 is for perpetual injunction. Thus, the disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are civil in nature with regard to the aforesaid land which will be decided by the Civil Court in the above said suits. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.1 in C.C. No.5286 of 2018 are liable to be quashed.

¶39

The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.5286 of 2018 on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, are hereby quashed against the petitioner - accused No. I only.

¶40

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the giryn?lpstition shalI stand closed.

¶41

¶42

¶43

Sd/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \L' SECTION OFFICER

¶44

¶45

The lX [Vletropolitan l,4agistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad. 2. The Station House Officer, P.S. Miyapur, Cyberabad.

¶46

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad (ouT)

¶47

One CC to Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate (OPUC)

¶48

One CC to Sri Krishna Mohan Sikharam, Advocate (OPUC)

¶49

Two CD Copies

¶50

One Spare Copy -^Ki. b-'

¶51

HIGH COURT

¶52

DATEO:201'121202'l

¶53

ffi \ n.
:i ao DEc?c?1
i-t

¶54

ORDER

¶55

CRLP.No.936^{oI 2020}

¶56

ALLOWED,

¶57

% oo\2." @

S.N.Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N.Reddy v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Regonda Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

Mettupally Santosh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and another

Md.Yousuf Kaleem Vs The State of Telangana

C.Revathi Vs P.Vittal Reddy

Mohammed Abdul Mujeeb Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Shafeeq Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana