Dismissed

Mohd Shahabuddin and 4 others v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022CRLP/3581/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a plea for quashing criminal proceedings arising from a land dispute involving allegations of property manipulation and forgery, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the core issue of land title is civil in nature but the allegations of forgery and cheating prima facie constitute criminal offences, warranting a trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of C.C. No. 370 of 2016 dismissed; trial to proceed on merits.

Mohd Shahabuddin and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} ATHYDERABAD "

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^DT. JUSTICE^D.NAGARJUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:^{3581 OF 2019}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohd Shahabuddin, S/o late Mohd^{Sharfuddin,Agedabout 37 years,RJo} Porandla Village, Maheshwaram-^{Mandal,Ranga Reddy District.}

¶9

Mohd Yaseen, S/o late Mohd Sharfuddin,^{Aged about 34 years,Rl/o Porandla} Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶10

Mohammad Dowlath Khan, S/o.Late Noorkhan, Aged^about 53^years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No.19-4-2811F11211, Sanjay Gandhi^{Nagar, Nawabsab} Kunta, Falaknuma, Hyderabad,

¶11

Azmeth Khan, S/o Dowlath Khan, Aged about 24^years, Rl/o^H.No.19-4- 281lF11211, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Nawabsab Kunta, Falaknuma,^Hyderabad,

¶12

Mohammad Hymath Khan, S/o.Dowlath Khan, Aged^{26 years, R/o H.No.19-4-} 281|F11211, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Nawabsab Kunta, Falaknuma,^Hyderabad

¶13

...PETITIONERYACCUSED 2 to 6

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad through Maheshwaram Police Station.

¶16

RESPONDENT/STATE

¶17

Sudershan Raj Kapoor, S/o. late Banket Prasad Kapoor, Aged about⁶⁷ years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No. 14-11-1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunl, Hyderabad.

¶18

Subhash Kapoor, S/o late Bankat Prasad, Aged about 63^{years, Rl/o.H.No.'14-} 1 1-1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunj, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS

¶20

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 quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein, in connection with C.C.No. 370 of 2016, on the file of the XXVI M.tvl. Court, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2019

¶22

PetitionunderSection482ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminalPetition, the High courtmay} be pleased to^{grant stay of all further proceedingsincludingappearance of} petiiioner in coniection witn C.C.^{No. 370 of 2016, on the file of the XXVI1til.M.} Court, Maheshwaram,^{Ranga Reddy.}

¶23

I.A, N O: 2 OF²⁰¹⁹

¶24

Between:

¶25

Subhash^{Kapoor, S/o late Bankat Prasad,Aged about 63 years, Ryo H No l4-11 -} iooa, eeeroinuagh,^{ShainayathGunj, Hyderabad'}

¶26

AND

¶27

Mohd Shahabuddin,^{S/o late Mohd Sharfuddin,4gggabout 37 years' R/o} ' ioirnOf, Vif f rge, Maheshwaram- Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'

¶28

Mohd Yaseen,^{S/o late Mohd Sharfuddin, nge{.ap9L1t34 years' R/o Porandla} -' VttJg", Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District'

¶29

3.tvlohammadDowlathKhan,S/o.LateNo-orkhan,^Agedabout53years'" O"i-grtin".s, RJo H. No.19-4 -281lFt12t1, Sanjay Gandni Nagar' Nawabsab Kunta, Falaknuma,^HYderabad,

¶30

Azmeth Khan,^{S/oDowlath Khan,Agedab-out24-years' Rl/o H No 19-4-} - 'fri'iii'izti,\lni"v cinohi nagjr, r'tawibsao Kunta, Filaknuma' Hvderabad'

¶31

Mohammad^{Hymath Khan, S/oDowlath Khan,Aged 2-6years'R/o H No 19-4-} ' )ai'iF:itzt\ , sdnjay oanani N;l;i N;;rba;b Ku"nta, Faiaknuma, Hvderabad

¶32

...RESPONDENT/ACCUSED^{2 to 6}

¶33

The State^{of Telangana, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor'High.Courtof} -' i;ii;"tJ;;t H-vdeiabaa throug'h^{MaheshwaramPoliceStation'}

¶34

RESPONDENT/STATE

¶35

Sudershan^{RajKaPoor(Died)}

¶36

RESPONDENT^No.2

¶37

Petition under^{Section 482 of Cr'P C prayingthat in thecircumstances} stated in the^{Memorandumof Grounds of Criminal Petition'the High Court may} ;;';[;.;1; vacate the interim^{order passed in crt.p.no.3581/2019dated.} 04.o7.2019.

¶38

This Petition coming on^{for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and^{upon hearing the arguments of Sri E V V S RAVI} KUI,IAR, Advocate for the Petitioner^{and of the Additional Public Prosecutor for} the State of Telangana on behalf of the^{RespondentNo.1 and of Sri} J-RAJESHWAR RAO, Advocate for the Respondent^{No.2 not appearingin person} or by Advocate.

¶39

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶40

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D'NAGARJUN} CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNo.3581 of2019}

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This Criminal^{Petition is filed underSection482 of the} Code of^{CriminalProcedureby the petitioners-accused Nos'2 to} 6 to^{quashC.C.No.37Oof 2016 on the file of learnedXXVI} Metropolitan Magistrate,^{Ranga ReddyDistrictat} Maheshwaram, the cognizance^{of which was taken for the} ofl'ences^{underSection s 42O, 447} '⁴²⁷ '^{506' 120-B read with} Section 34 ofthe^{indianPenalCode'}

¶43

2 The facts in^{brief as can be seenfrom record available} before the^{Court are as under}

¶44

a) The rcspondent^{Nos' 2 and 3 - de-factocomplainantshave} todged a llrivate^{complaintunderSection200 of the Code of} Criminal^{Procedure before the learnedXXVI Metropolitan} Magislr:rr-e,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict at Maheshwaram allegingthat} they^havr., purchased^{land admeasuringAc'42 '28 guntastn} arrd 22 situated^{in Porandla village,Maheshwaram} Sy.Nos.21 Mandalⁱⁿ l:he year^{1984 vide Sale deeds bearingdocument} Nos. 13¹² ancl 13111^{of 1984 from the original owner Mohd'} Ahmed Shareef^{tl-rroughregistered-GPf Holdertry name Mohd'}

¶45

¶46

Mahboob Sareef, S/o. Ahmed Shareef by paying sale consideration and since then the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Maheshwar issued pattadar passbook and title deeds and other records in favour of the compiainants and entries in possessor columns are being maintained till the year 20t3-14.

¶47

b) The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have developed the said property by obtaining loan from Daccan Grameena Bank, Dubbacherla of Maheshwaram Mandal by keeping the said land records in the bank as custody for a collateral security. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have dug a borewell for cultivation and made fencing of the endre land with iron barbwire and also installed electric meter. There was a protected tenant over the said extent and later the same was compromised with the original owner/pattedar and tenants vide decree in O.S.No.210 of 1983 and O.,S.No.2O3 of 1983 before the Civil Court at Ibrahimpatnam, thereby the protected tenant was evicted from the propert5r by initiating separate proceedings under Section 2g (2) and t9 of A.p. (TA) Act, 1850 by the original pattedar Mohd. Ahmed shareef in case No.B8/429 /1970 before the Tahsildar,

¶48

¶49

¶50

Ibrahimpatnam and the^{possessionwas also handed over to the} pattedar after conducting a detailed^panchanama.

¶51

c) Accused Nos.l and 2 along with^{accused Nos.3 to 5} created a bogus and fake^{documentsi.e-, Will Deeddated} 22.05.1966 alleged to have been^{executed by one Khaja} Moinuddin in favour of Mohd.^{Sharfuddinantedatedi.e.,} 22.05.1966 and aiso^{one Gift Deeddated 27.1O.197a alleged to} have been executed by Mohd.^{Sharfuddinin favourof Yazeer} Bee. Both the documents^{have not seen the light of the day,} except Xerox copies, which^{were hled before the authoritiesto} create complications'^{Accused Nos' 1 to 5 along} "T^{ith their} mother V azeer Bee also created^{a pahanipatrikafor the year} 2Ol2-2O13 and a Writ^{PetitionNo.15O8Ool 2Ol4 was filed with} a prayer of issuance of computerized^{pahaniwith regard to the} above mentioned land^{without making complainantsas parties.} The complainants^got impleaded in^{the writ petitionvide orders} in WP MP No.20325 of 2014.^{When a counter affidavitis Iiled} by K.Gopiram, Tahsildar of^{Maheshwaram Mandal statingthat} the name of the complainants are^{recorded in the revenue} records as per the document^{created by them i.e., pahani} patrika for the year 2012.13, the accused^{have withdrawn the} said writ petition as "not^{pressed".A1i the accused have created}

¶52

¶53

¶54

forged documents i.e., will deed and gift deed to cause wrongful loss to the complainants in connection with the said property in order to grab the same without valid title and possession. The accused along with other unknown antisocial elements have been regularly threatening the complainants and other family members at the agricultural land to see their end and trying to occupy the possession ofthe land and damaging the property.

¶55

d) Learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram has referred the said private complaint to the Maheshwaram police Station under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure for further investigation. The police, Maheshwaram has registered a case in Crime No. 168 of 2Ol4 for the offences under Sections 463, 464, 468, 471, 42O,5O6 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, the police have filed charge sheet alleging that accused Nos.2 to 6 have committed offences under Section s 447, 422, 42O, 506, 12O_B read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code and accused No.7 has committed the offence under Section 42O of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet was taken on file as C.C.No.3ZO of 2O16. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 to quash C.C.No.37O

¶56

¶57

¶58

of 2016 on the file of learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram against theim on the lollowing grounds:

¶59

i) There are civil disputes between the petitioners and family of the de-facfo complainant for a long time and number of complaints have been hled against the petitioners by de-facto complainant and his family members i.e., FIR Nos. 141 of 2012, 179/2014 ar,d 212 of 2Ol4 against respondent No.3 and FIR Nos. 213 and 221 of 2Ol4 against the watchman of tine de-facto complainants. FIR No.212 of 2014 is still pending and in all the remaining cases the accused were acquitted. All the complaints are similar in nature, wherein the allegatiosn are that the accused have trespassed into the land in Sy.Nos.21 and 22 to an extent of Ac.42.28 guntas situated at porandla Village of Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District.

¶60

ii) Though de-facto complainant and his brother are alleging that they have purchased an extent of Ac.42.28 guntas in Sy. Nos.21 and 22 from one Mohd.Ahmed Sharif through his GPA Holder Mohd. Ahmed Sharif, the above extent of land belongs to one Khaja Moinuddin. The de-facto complainant alleged that Khaja Moinuddin sold the land to Mohd. Ahmed Sharif, who in

turn sold the extent of land in favour of the de-facto complainant and his brother but the d_e-facto complainant is not able to produce the sale deed between Khaja moinuddin and Mohd. Ahmed Sharif.

¶65

iii) The petitioners are the legal heirs of the said Khaja Moinuddin. The de-facto complainant and his brother have got executed the alleged sale deeds from Mohd. Ahmed Sharif even though the said Mohd. Ahmed Sharif without having any manner of right and authority sold the said extent of propert5r. The petitioners were in possession of the propert5z ald when the de-facto complainant and his brother along with their henchmen came to the said property, the complaints were lodged. In fact, the d.e-facto complainant has also filed a suit for injunction vide O.S.No.6O2 of 2Ol4 but no injunction was granted by the Court, as such, in order to pressurize the petitioners, the criminal complaints have been filed against the petitioners.

¶66

iv) Learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate at Maheshwaram while acquitring the petitioners in C.C.No.3l4l2014 in connection with FIR No.141 of 2Ol2 has observed that there are serious disputes with regard to the ownership of land. Similarly

¶67

¶68

¶69

in other judgments also the courts have held that the complaints are initiated only to wreak havoic in the lives of the petitioners and that there is no material to show that the possession of the de-facto compiainant and his brother over the Iand in Sy.Nos.2l and 22.

¶70

v) The witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge sheet have earlier filed complaints against the petitioners and the said criminal cases ended in acquittal. There is not even iota of truth in the complaint iodged by respondent No.2. The allegations made in the complaint are not attracting the provisions of the various sections invoked against the petitioners. The Police have acted hand in glove due to various reasons by liling charge sheet against the petitioners.

¶71

vi) When the possession of t}le de-facto complainant over the said propert5r is under cloud, there is no question of illegal trespass and therefore, entire complaint has to be quashed.

¶72

Though notice was served on respondent No.2, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. As seen from the record, learned counsel for the petitioners has hled a memo alleging that respondent No.2 has died recently. Heard Sri E.V.V.S.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitigners, Sri

¶73

'qr ----r

¶74

¶75

Jillella Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the respondent No.l and perused the record.

¶76

5 Now the point for determination is:

¶77

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.370 of 2076 on the fi1e of learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

¶78

According to de-facto complainant, the land to an extent 4c.42.28 guntas in Sy.Nos.2l and 22 situated in porandla village, Maheshwaram Mandal was purchased in the year l9B4 vide Sale deeds bearing document Nos.1312 and 1313 of 1984 from the original owner Mohd. Ahmed Shareef through registered GPA Hoider by name Mohd. Mahboob Sareef, S/o. Ahmed Shareef by way of valid sale consideration. Subsequent to sale transaction, possession was delivered in favour of the de-facto complainant and his brother, pattadar passbooks, title deeds were given and in alr the revenue records their names were entered in the possessor column without any interruption. It is submitted by the de-facto complainant that there was a protected tenant over the said extent of land. The original

¶79

¶80

¶81

owner and protected tenant have compromised^{the dispute in} O.S.No.210 ol 1983 and O.S.No.2O3 of^{1983 beforethe Civil} Court at Ibrahimpatnam, thereby the^{protected tenantwas} evicted from the property by initiating separate^proceedings under Section 28 (21 and 19 of A.P.^(TA) Act,^{185O by the} Case original pattedar Mohd. Ahmed Shareef in No.B8/429 11970 before the Tahsildar, Ibrahimpatnam^{and the} possession was also handed over to the pattedar^after conducting a detailed panchanama. It is further^{alleged that} Accused Nos.1 to 6 have created bogus and fake documents^i.e., Will Deed dated 22.O5. 1966 alleged to have been^{executed by} one Khaja Moinuddin in favour of Mohd. Sharfuddin^antedated i.e., 22.05.1966 and also one Gift Deed dated 27.10.1974 alleged to have been executed by Mohd. Sharfuddin in^{favour of} Yazeer Bee, who is mother of the petitioners herein. Originals^of those documents have not seen the light of the^{day and only} Photostat copies of those documents were filed in the^Writ Petition No. 1508O of 2014, which was subsequently^not pressed after hiing of the counter by the de-facto complainant. It is further alleged that in the year 2Ol2-2O13 basing on the forged documents got entered in collusion with revenue authorities, which is challenged by tlae de-facto complainant.

ho_

'-'J

The main ground on which the petitioners seeking quashment of the proceedings against them is that the petitioners are the owners of the property through their mother Vazeer Bee, who has got properties through Mohd.sharfuddin, who got the property through Khaza Moinuddin. It is arso the case of the petitioners that the person, who has executed sale deed in favour of tine d-e_facto complainant has no valid title in respect of schedule of propertlz. The petitioners have also given the details of number of cases pending between the petitioner and, de-facto complainant. According to the petitioners about six FIRs are registered against the first petitioner and his watchman, out of which five cases ended in acquittal and one case is still pending. By mentioning the details of acquittal of number of cases filed by tine d.e-facto complainant and others, it is alleged that in almost all the alieged cases, d.e-facto complainant has taken plea of trespass by the petitioners into the land of the de-facto complainant. The petitioners have also filed copies of the judgments in C.C.No.314 of 2OI4 and, C.C.No.467 of 2015, wherein one of the petitioners was charged for various offences including trespass of the land in dispute and they were found not guilt5r. Basing on the said disposal of criminal cases Iiled against the petitioners .-/ _ and others, it is

''J

submitted vehemently th.at de-facto complainant going on hling false cases against tJlem even though earlier cases were resulted in acquittal by putting same allegations of trespass by giving different dates and by showing different cause of action and therefore sought for quashing C.C.No.370 of 2016 against the petitioners.

¶90

On considering rival contentions and on going through the documents including copies of the judgments filed, it is clear that there is serious dispute of the ownership between the parties on one hand and de-facto complainant on the other hand. According to the petitioners, the person, who sold the property to the de-faclo complainant has no valid titie and whereas according to thre de-facfo complainant, the petitioner created fake documents with antedate and basing on those documents trying to project that they are the others of the property. Therefore, whether the de-facto complainant is the owner by virtue of the sale deeds executed by the predecessors in title or whether the petitioners are having right through their mother in respect of schedule of property are the issues will have to be determined only after full-fledged trial by the trial Court may be in a proper suit for declaration and title. Until,

¶91

¶92

then the cases and counter cases against the petitioners and respondents would continue

¶93

So far as the present petition is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioners have trespassed into their land, damaged the same, abused them in Iiithy language and also cheated them, all the allegations against the petitioners are based on the facts, which the petitioners are disputing. As already observed, whether tlle petitioners are the owners or the d.e_facto complainant is the owner would come to light only after full_ fledged trial. Even criminal Court in a preliminary enquiry with regard to the trial, cannot give a finding as to whether the petitioners are owners of the propert5r. In a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, it cannot be decided that the de-facto complainant is not the owner and that the petitioners are the original owner. Until record is found that the petitioners are not the owners of the property and that the de-facto complainant has no right over the same, this court cannot quash ttre case against the petitioners. Similarly, Sections 427 arrd 442 of t]ne Indian penal Code are the offences that are mainly connected with the title of the property. If the de-facto complainant is the owner of the said properfy and if the petitioners are the owners of the said property, then the

¶94

¶95

question of trespass by the petitioners does not arise. Similarly, Sections 5O6 and 42O of the Indian Penal Code are also connected to the main issue as to whether the^petitioners are the owners or the de-facfo complainant. Therefore, at this stage, based on the charge sheet, statements of witnesses, it is clear that there is pima-focie material against the petitioners. Therefore, the case against the petitioners cannot be summarily quashed.

¶96

1O. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case is purely civil in nature and in support of his contention, relied upon an authority in Prof. R.K.Vijayasarathy and aaother v. Sudha Seetharam and anotherl, wherein the Honourable Apex Court held as follows:

¶97

"24. In the present case, tLLe son of the appellants hos instituted a ciuil suit for the recouery of moneg against the first respondent. Tte suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years ofter the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three gears from ttLe filing^{of the suit.The ouerments in the complaint, read} on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made bg the first respondent to cloak2 ciuil

¶98

' 12019;^{16 supreme Court Cascs 739}

¶99

(

¶100

¶101

dispute uith a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed. by the jirst respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.

¶102

I 1. In Mitesh Kumar J.Sha v. State of Karnataka and others2 the Honourable Apex Court held as follows:

¶103

"41. Hauing considered. the releuant arguments of the parties and decisions of this court ute are of the considered uieut that existence of d.ishonest or fraudulent^intention has not been made out against the Appellants. Though tlle instant d.ispute certainly inuolues determination o.,f rbsues which are of ciuit nature, pursuant to tohich Respondent No. 2 has euen instituted multiple ciuil suits, one can bg no means stretch the dispute to an ertent, so as to impart it a ciminal colour. As has been righttg emphasised upon bg this court, bg tuay of an obseruation rend.ered. in the case of M/ s Indian Oit Corporation Vs. M/ s. NEpC India Ltd & Ors.7, as under :-

¶104

"14. While no one uith a legitimate cause or gneuance should be preuented from seeking remed.ies auailable in ciminal law, a complainant wio initiates orpersisfs with a prosec:tttion, being fullg anlare that tle ciminal proceedings are unwarranted and_ his remedg lies only in ciuil laut, should himself be made accotintable, at the end of such misconceiued. criminal proceedings, in accordance uith lauL.,'

¶105

It tuas also obserued:-

¶106

'2021^SCC,Onlige sc 976

¶107

¶108

"13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a grouing tendencg in business circles to conuert purelg ciuil disputes into criminal cases. This is obuiouslg on account of a preualent impression that ciuil lau remedies ore time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/ creditors....There ls olso an impression that if a person could somehotu be entangled in a ciminal proseantion, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle ciuil disputes and. cloims, uLhich do not inuolue ang ciminal offence, bg applging pressure though ciminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. "

¶109

On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of {JP and Ors.8, this Court has also obserued:-

¶110

"8. Juri.sdiction under Section 482 of the Cod_e has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdtction High Court is not to examine the matter superfi"ciallg. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentiolly of ciuil nature, hos been giuen a cloak of criminal offence. CriminaL proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies auailable in law. Before issuing process a ciminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain pinciples on the basis of tuhich High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction und.er Section 482 of tLrc Code. Jurisdiction under this Section ho's to be exercised to preuent abuse of the process of any court or othentise to seanre the ends of justice. "

¶111

Furthennore, in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan LaI and.. Ors. regarding exercise of intrerent pot_uers und.er section 482 of CrPC, this Court has laid dotun following categoies of instances u.therein inherent potuers of the can be exercised in order to secure the ends of justice. These are:-

\1)^{tuhere the} allegations mad,e in the First Information Report or the complaint, euen if theg are takin at their face^ualue .and accepled in their entiretg d.o not pima facie^constit-ute ang offence or make out-a case a-gainst the acansed;

¶117

(2) uLhere the allegations in the First Information Report and ot_her_moterials, if any, accomponging the F.I.R. d.o not disclose a cognizable offence, justifgingl an inuestig-ation bg police offtcers ind er Seltioi^"l S"ag oy the Code except under an ord.er of a Magistrate within the puruieut of Section 155(2) of tt-te Code;

¶118

(3) where the uncontrouerted_ aLlegations mad_e in the FIR or 'complaint and the euidence collected. in support of the same do not dlsclose the commission oj ory offence and make out a case against the accused:

¶119

(4) uthere the allegations in the FIR d,o not constitute a co-gnizable offence but constitute onlg a non_cogni-z,able offence, no inuestigation is permitted. bg a poliJe offi.cer tuithout- an order of a Magistrate is iontemitated under Section 155(2) of the Cod.e;

¶120

(5) Luhere the allegations made in th_e FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on the basis of u,t.hich no pntdent person can euer reach a just conclusion that there is stfficient ground for pro"."iing aga.inst the accused;

¶121

(6) uhere there is an express legal bar engrafted. in ang of the prouisions of the Cod.e or the conieied- Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted.) to the institution and continuance of tLte- proceed.ings^'and/ or where there is a specific prouisioi in the Code or the concented Act, prouiding efftcacious red.ress for the gieuance of the aggrieued partg:

¶122

(7). wlzere _a ciminal proceed.ing is manifestlg attend-ed. with mala fide and/ or uth-ere the - proi.",iiig i" maliciouslg instituted tuith an ulterior motiui yor utreaking uengeonce on ttte acansed. and- Luith a uieu to spite him due to friy$e and personal grud.ge."

\ \

The issue involved between the parties is as to who has got a valid title over the property in dispute. It has been specifically mentioned that the petitioners in collusion with revenue officials, more particularly VRO of Porandla Village have created a pahani patrika for the year 2Ol2.l3 and got entered the names of the petitioners, even though they have no right. The statements of witnesses from the revenue department like Tahsildar, Deputy Tahsildar, VRO, would go to show that the then VRO in collusion with accused persons has created pahani patrika that the petitioners are in possession of the property, as such, even the then VRO is shown as one of the accused i.e., Accused No.7-

¶127

Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the civil court will give a hnding as to whether the petitioners or the de-facto complainant are the owners of the property in dispute, still tlrere is a strong pima-facie material in respect of allegations that forgery was done and documents were created. Therefore, it cannot be ruled that there is no prima-facie case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 42O of the Indian Penal Code. Since there is pima-facie material against the petitioners, the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.37O of 2016 on the file of learned XXVI Metropolitan

¶128

¶129

¶130

Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram, cannot be quashed.

¶131

Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case against the petitioners in C.C.No.370 of 2016 on the file of learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Maheshwaram on merits, uninfluenced by the observations and comments made by this court in this order.

¶132

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶133

¶134

ASSISTAifl;+.G:51HT

¶135

//rRUE coPY// \l1] "',

¶136

¶137

secrioN drr,.=*

¶138

To, 'I . The XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court Maheshwaram, Rangareddy District. 2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor,High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶139