Allowed

C. Madhukar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jul 2022CRLP/3000/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings initiated based on a private complaint alleging forgery regarding a property deed. The court held the dispute was civil in nature and quashing was necessary to prevent abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No. 261 of 2012 are quashed; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

C. Madhukar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3000 OF 20'13

¶6

Between:

¶7

C. Madhukar Reddy,, S/o C, Ranga Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o 190/2RT, Saidabad Colony, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No. 1

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. at Hyderabad, through SHO., Kanchanbagh, PS., Hyderabad.

¶11

S, Babruvahan Reddy,, S/o Late S.Janga Reddy, Occ: Business, Rlo 9-4-7, Champapet, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

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 may be pleased to call for the records relating to and connected with the Cr.No.26'1 of 2012 on the file of the Kanchanbagh PS., Hyderabad and quash the same in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned.

¶14

(CRLPMP. NO: 2681 OF 2013)

¶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 may be pleased to order stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioner in Cr.No.26'l of 2012, on the file of S.H.O-, Kanchanbagh PS, Hyderabad, pending the disposal of the above Crl.P.

¶16

¶17

l.A. N(): 1 OF 2017

¶18

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 may be pleased to vacate the stay granted in crlp.No 3000/2013 0n the file of the Hon'bl': High court Dt23.4.2013.

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J U M V PRASAD ,Advocate for the Petitioner in Crt.p. 3OO0/2013 and Respondent No. 1 in l.A. No 1l17and the Assistant Public prosecutor (TG/Ap) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 in Crl.p. 3000/2013 and petitioner in l.A. No. 1117 and of Sri D. Amerarrder Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 in Crl.p. No. 3000/2013 and none appeared in Respondent No. 2 in l.A. No. 1t2017.

¶20

The Cc urt made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTIIOSH REDDY

¶23

CRL.P.No.3000 OF 2013

¶24

ORDEII:

¶25

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A- l ln Cr.No.26l of 2012 of Kanchanbagh Police Station registered lor the offences punishable under Sections.4l9,420,468 and 471, 109 IPC.

¶26

l]eard learned counsel lor the petitioner, learned counsel lor the second respondent and leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and perused the material on record.

¶27

The second respondent filed a private complaint befbre VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally against the petitioner and ( l2) others alleging rhar the father of the second respondent namely Late S.Janga Reddy is the pattadar and owner of land in survey No. l8 of Sulthanvula, Champapet (v), Hyderabad and the said land $"as converted into plots. Out ol them, the petitioner/A-[ purchased plot bearing No.l in the said survey number from the lather of the second respondent under registered document bearing No.8706 of'1980, dated I1.09. 1980. It is further alleged that the petitioner impersonated the second respondent

¶28

ASR,J crlp 3000_2013

¶29

¶30

and his rnother and thereby got registered a rectification deed bearing No.7l69 ol 2009 on I 1.09.2002 with the assistance of othcr accused, as if he purchased plot No.38 and not that of plot No. I in survey No. lti of Sulthanvula, Champapet village through documenr bearing No.8706 of 1980, dated 11.09.1980. Thereby, rhe petitioner and others committed the aforesaid offences. The complaint was referred to Station House Officer, Kanchanbagh^police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.261 of 2012 for the said offence. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal petition is filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent filed a false complaint against the petitioner and others as counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner on 17.10.2012 before the Court of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magisrrate, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad against the second and respondent and his builder and the said complaint was registered in Cr.No.254 ol 2011.

¶32

l.carned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner obtained permission from the LB Nagar Municipality lor the subjcct property and even the lather of the petitioner has also executed an agreement for change of plot No. I which was purchased

ASR,J crlp_3O0o 2013

I I

by him to that of Plot No.38 and since the father of the^petitioner and his coparceners have failed to execute the necessary conveyances incorporating the corrections, the petitioner had even filed O.S.No.l26 of 1985 on the file of Principal District Munsiff, Hyderabad and the same was decreed on 02.05.1986. Subsequently, when the authorities of municipality were interfering with the construction, he also filed O.S.No. 189 of i985 and which was also decreed on 14.08.1991.

¶37

Leamed counsel for the second respondent submits that the allegations of the complainl, prima facie, satisfu the ingredients of the alleged offence and make out cognizable offences. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶38

1 . Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits the allegations of the complaint make out prima facie ingredients lor the ot-fences alleged and opposed the petition.

¶39

A perusal of the allegations of the complaint would reveal that the petitioner/A- I purchased plot under registered sale deed, dated 11.09.1980, from the father of the second respondent. The father of the second respondent died on 21.03.1987. As on that day the age of second respondent was five years. His date of birth is

./'

ASR,J crlp 30OO_2013

28.11.1982. It is alleged that the petitioner intended to grab plot No.38 and created a false document bearing No.7l69 of 2002. dated 1.09.2002 styled it as rectification deed. The recitals ofthe said document discloses that by virtue of rectification deed, the recitals in document executed by the father of the second respondent, dated I 1.09.1980, has been rectified. By virtue of said document, the petitioner has become the owner of plot No.3g instead of plot No.l and gave for development. The said document shows that the mother of the second respondent has executed said rectification deed and A_2 and A-3 are the attesting witnesses to the rectification deed and it also shows that it was rectified as per the orders of the Court in O.S.No. 189 of 1985, dated 05.02.1985. But in the complaint it is alleged that neither he nor his mother has executed any kind of document in favour of the petitioner and the thumb impressions and the signatures therein were forged. The land in the ptot No.3g was given lor development under registered document, dated 04.06.2002, which sholr,s that A-4 is the builder/developer and A-5 to A_ 13 are the residents ol said buitding. The petitioner also filed another

¶44

certified of the regisrered document No.gl70 of 2006 dated

¶45

ASR,J crlp_30oo 20¹³

¶46

¶47

13.04.2006 and^{the said document showsthat A-12 alleged to have} purchased Plot No.38 from^{the petitioner.}

¶48

g. lt is the claim of the^{petitioner that during the life time of father} of the second respondent,^{his father executedagreementdated} 22.06.1982 for change of^plot No.l^{to that of plot No.38 and when} they laited to execute^{the necessaryconveyance'he filed suit in} O.S.No.l26 of 1985 on^{the file of PrincipalDistrictMunsiff,} Hyderabad and the same^{was decreed on 02'05.1986.A perusalof} the copy of decree in O.S.No.l26^{of 1985 showsthat the saidsuit was} filed lor perpetual Injunction^{in respect of} 'plot^{No. I altered to Plot} No.38 measuring 504 square^{yards. Admittedly, the suit was not filed} lor rectification of^{plotnumberwhich was filed for injunction in} respect of plot No.38.^{However,the allegedrectification deed} through which plot number^{was rectified from plot No- I to plotNo.38} allegedly executed by the mother ofthe^{second respondent.}

¶49

It is the case of the complainant^{that the rectificationdeed is} {hlse and fabricated and the^{petitioner/A I purchasedplot No.1 and by} labrication of lorged document^{has got it correctedas plot No.38.He} also alleged that two^{personsfalsely represented themselves as the} mother ol the second respondent^{and the second respondent before}

¶50

¶51

ASR,J crlp 3000_2013

¶52

the Registrar, Champapet and executed said rectification deed in favour of the petitioner to which A_2 and A_3 are the attesting witnesses. It appears from the allegations that the second respondent was aged five years, when the registered document was executed by his flather in lavour ol petitioner/A_ I in respect of plot No. I and his father died on 2l .03.19g7. The rectification deed is dated I l.OI.2OO2. These allegations are prima facre of civil in nature for the reason that ifl at all the second respondent has disputed his signature and signature ot'his mother on rectification deed, it is for him to approach the civil Court and file civil suit for declaration that rectification deed is null and void, as the signatures are forged. Then the Civil Coum would decide the issue whether the rectification deed is signed by the second respondent and his mother or some other persons forged their signatures. In the absence of the same, the allegation that the rectification deed is false, f'abricated and forged document is not tenable and would not prima facie, constitute the said offences.

¶53

I l. Going by the arregations or the compraint would reveal that the alleged rectification deed was dated. I 1.09.2002 and the complaint was lodged on 11.12.2012 after more than ten years alleging that the said document is a lorged document. Further more, the first petitioner

ASR,J crlp 3000-2013

I I

todged complaint^{on 23.11.2012 againstthe secondrespondent} herein, whereas^{the presentcomplaint was filed on I I . I 2'201 2' It} appears as rightly^{contended by the leamed counselfor the petitioner} that as a counter^{blast to the casefiledagainst the second respondent} and other accused,^{the presentcomplaint is lodgedonly to harass the} petitioner/A-t and other^{accused.Apart from that, another document} was executed lor development^{of the said land and constructed the} building and the^{documentwas registered on04'06'2022'} Unfortunately, the^{persons who are residingin the said buildingare} also implicated as^{A-5 to A-13, though thereis no fault on their part} in the alleged transaction.

¶58

The Hon'ble Apex Court^{in V.Y. JOSEAND ANOTHER V'}

¶59

STATB OF GUJARAT^{AND ANOTHERI hEId AS rOIIOWS:}

¶60

"section 482 serves a salutary purpose that a person should^not undergo harassment of^{litigation for a number ofyears although} no case has been made out^{against him. A matter which} c'sscntially involves dispute of a^{civil natureshould notbe} allorved to be the subject^{matterof a criminaloffence, the latter} being a short cut of executing^{a decree whichis non-existent'} The superior couns, with a^{view to maintain purity in the} adrninistration ofjustice,^{should notallow abuse of theprocess} of court. They have a duty^{in termsof Sections483 to supervise} function ing ofthe trial^Courts."

¶61

,(2009)3 SCC 78

¶62

8 ASR,J crlp_3000_2013

¶63

Having regard to the above, I am of the view that the allegations made against the petitioner clearly make out that the matter is essentially orcivil in nature and is given a cloak o[criminal offence and the present complaint is filed as a counter case against the petitioner/A- I also cannot be ruled out.

¶64

In the facts and circumstances ol the case on hand, the conclusion is inescapable that invoking of jurisdiction of criminal Court by the second respondent would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, it is a fit case to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C and to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A- I to avoid the abuse of process of law.

¶65

In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/A- I in crime No.26l of 2012 of Kanchanbagh Police Station, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶66

¶67

SD/. G. SIREESHA ASSTSTANT RqGISTFAR //TRUE COPY// secrtoruj&6cen

¶68

To,

¶69

The Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan^{Magistrate, City Criminal Courts,} Hyderabad at^NamPallY.

¶70

The Station House Officer,^{Kanchanbagh Police Station.}

¶71

Two CC to Public^{Prosecutor,High Courtfor the State of Telangana at} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶72

One CC to SRI^{D. AMARENDERREDDYAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶73

One CC to SRI J.U.M.V^{PrasadAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶74

HIGI-I COURT

¶75

DATIID:20 10712022

¶76

Or
1 a't.'.
c $5 5tl $Tl

¶77

ORDER

¶78

CRLP.No.3000 of 2013

¶79

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION WITTIOUT COSTS.

¶80

lri

C. Madhukar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Madhukar Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

K.Laxmi Kala and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

P.Sangeetha Vs K. Muralidhar

Mir Aijaz Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Gandham Bhagath, Hyd Vs K. Venkateswar Rao , Raju, Hyd and Anr.

Smt. Sirisha Siddam, Hyderabad., Vs N.Siddam Narasimhulu, Bangalore and Anr, Rep Pp.

B. Jyothiramoy, Vs SHO