Allowed

G.v.Laxmikantha Rao, Karimnagar (Manddt) and 2 Othrs., v. State of Ap., Rep. Sho, 1 Town Ps., and Anr.

Telangana HC7 Jun 2022CRLP/3657/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court examined allegations of forgery and cheating arising from family property disputes. Finding no prima facie case for criminal offences and noting pending civil litigation, the Court quashed the proceedings as an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No. 96 of 2013 against petitioners quashed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

G.v.Laxmikantha Rao, Karimnagar (Manddt) and 2… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3657 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

G.V.LAXMIKANTHA RAO, KARIMNAGAR (M&DT)., S/o. G.V.Sadasiva Rao, R/o. Nagnoor Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶8

G.V.Kishan Rao, S/o. G.V.Sadasiva Rao, R/o. Nagnoor Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶9

G.V.Ranga Rao, S/o. G.V.Sadasiva Rao, R/o. Nagnoor Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District.

¶10

...PETtTtONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF AP., REP. SHO, I TOWN PS., represented by the SHO, 1 Town Police Station, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District, through Public Prosecutor of High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

G.V.Sadasiva Rao @ Sambasiva Rao, Sio. G.V.Sadasiva Rao, R/o. Nagnoor Village, Presently residing at H-No. 2-5-17 , Hanamkonda, Warangal.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶15

Petition under Section 482 o'( 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 pertaining to Crime No. 96 of 2013 dated 1403-2013 on the file of the Karimnagar I Town Police Station and quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to 43 in the interest of justice.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLPMP. NO: 3291 OF 2013)

¶17

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 stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners in connection with Crime No. 96 of 201 3 dated 14-03-2013 on the file of the Karimnagar I Town Police Station, pending disposal of the criminal petition.

¶18

¶19

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri ALLADI RAVINDER, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Venuganti Mahesh Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

¶23

CRL.P.No.3657 OF 2013

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash further proceedings against petitioners/A- I to A-3 in Cr.No.96 of 2Ol3 of Karimnagar- I Town Police Station, Karimnagar District registered lor the offences punishable under Sections 420,464, 120-8 IPC.

¶26

The second respondent filed a private complaint before Judicial Magistrate ol First Class, Karimnagar alleging that he is the eldest son of G.V.Sadashiva Rao. One G.V.Laxmikantha Rao, G.V.Kishan Rao and G.V.Ranga Rao (A- I to A-3) are other sons of G.V.Sadashiva Rao. Said G.V.Sadashiva Rao owned and possessed agricultural lands in Manakondur, Nagnur and Bommakal villages. Apart lrom the said properties, he acquired properties in Buggarerm Siruvanchakota and Gopalapuram Villages in Jagital Revenuc Division from his mother by name Guduru Lalitha Bai. The lands of

¶27

ASR,J crlp,3657 20 13

¶28

¶29

Buggaram Village are got recorded patta in the name of G.V.Laxmikantha Rao (A-1) by G.V.Sadashiva Rao and the la,nds o[ Siruvanchakota and Golapura are recorded patta in the name ol G.V.Kishan Rao, Sadashiva Rao has Iiled declaration in C.C.No.lO52/J/75 under the provisions of A.P.Land Reforms Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (for short'the Act, 1973lr. A-3 being minor on the notified date 01.01.1975, he is not entitled to one standard holding and he is included in the lamily unit o[ father. The second respondent and A-1 and A-2 are allowed one standard holding each, while G.V.Sadashiva Rao is allowed one standard holding by Rt:venue Divisional Officer, Jagital in orders in C.C.No. lO52/J /75 dt. 13.04.2007. Against th<: said orders, father of the second respondent filed appeai in the Lald Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-lII Adclitional District Judge, Karimnagar in LRA.No.2 of 2OO7 and the same is pending. The father of the second respondent has expired on O1.ll.2OO7 ald on his death, the second

¶30

ASR,J crlp_3657_2O 13

¶31

¶32

respondent and his other legal heirs including the accused are brought on record in I.A.No.379 of 2008 in L.R.A.No.2 ol 2OO7.

¶33

It is alleged that the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Reforms, Karimnagar has held that the family of second respondent holding surplus land in an extent of 5.398 1 standard holdings in its order dated 24.05.1988. He issued notice in Form No.VI, dated 06.06.1988 directed the father of the second respondent to fiIe surrender statement of surplus lald. The father of the second respondent has failed to Iile surrender statement. The Tribunal has issued show cause notice in Form No.VIII dated 22.07.1988 as to why suo moto selection of surplus lands should not be taken under Section 10(a) of the Act, 1973. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Karimnagar has selected different extents land in various survey numbers mentioned in the complaint and the same has been approved by the Additional Revenue 1n Divisional Olficer, Land Relorms, Karimnagar

¶34

¶35

¶36

ASR,J crlp 3657 20 l3

¶37

C.C.No. LO52lJ /75 on 08.09. 1989. The Revenue

¶38

Divisional Oflicer, Jagital in notice in C.C.No. lO52 lJl75, dated 30,08.2006 directed the father ol' the second respondent to deliver possession of the lands selected suo moto. On his failure to deliver possession, the Tahsildar, Karimnagar has directed the Mandal Rcvenue Inspector-ll, Karimnagar to take possession of the lands. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Inspector-ll, Karimnagar has taken possession in Sy.No.383 to an extent of Ac.O1-90 cents, Sy.No.438 Ac.O-72 cents, S1..No.439 Ac.lO-22 cents, Sy.No.443 Ac.l2-17 guntas, Sv.No.549 Ac.0-95 cents, Sy.No.55O Ac.1-25 cents, Sy.No.58 I Ac.O1-55 cents, Sy.No.5B4 Ac.O1-57 cents, Sy.No.442 Ac.04-37 cents of Nagnur Village, Karimnagar Revenue Mandal and District on 30.O9.2OO6 uncler thc covcr of panchanama.

¶39

It is further alleged that in the name of father of the second rcspondent, an application was filed before the 13.09.2006 District Collector, Karimnagar on

¶40

ASR,J crlp 3657 2O 13

¶41

¶42

questioning the notice issued in CC.No. lO52/J /75, dated 30.08.2006 requesting to issue necessary directions to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial to stay all further proceedings ln Ceiling case. The application was filed through vaka-lat allegedly signed by the father of the second respondent. In fact the signature of G.V.Sadashiva Rao appearing on vakalat does not belong to him and it is forged by the accused persons.

¶43

It is further alleged that the second respondcnt has filed O.S.No2O4 of 2O05 on the {ile of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar against his father G.V.Sadashiva Rao ald accused persons lor partition and separate possession. In the said suit, writ statement is llled on behalf of G.V.Sadashiva Rao and A-2. It is alleged that the signature appearing on the written statement as G.V.Sadashiva Rao does not belong to him and it is forged by accused persons. A- 1 to A-3 are enjoying the lands at Nagnur Villagc and they have put

¶44

6 ASR,.J crlp 3657 2O 13

¶45

G.V.Sadashiva Rao under threat to life in order to deprive the legal rights of the second respondent. They are alienating the lands in Nagnur Village in violation ol injunction orders granted by the Court in I.A.No.630 of 2OO9 in O.S.No.43 ol 2OO9 on the file of V Additional District Judge's Court, Karimnagar. On 22.O2.2OO7 an application was liled in the name of G.V.Saclashiva Rao in the olfice ol Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial stating that the matter in issue on execution side under Section 10 of the Act, 1973 and determination o[ holding has already been made under Section 9 of the Act and the matter cannot be reopened and re-determined. The aJrplication does not bear the signature of father of the second respondent and it is forged by accused persons. Tl-re said complaint was lorwarded to the Station House Officer, Karimnagar II Town Police Station for investigation. On that a case in Crime No.96 of 2013 u'as registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid o flence s.

ASR,J crtp 3657 20l3

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are disputes between the petitioners and the second respondent in respect of partition of ancestral propcrties and also civil suits are pending between the parties. The second respondent made fa-lse allegation that the petitioners have committed theft of forgery of signature of their father on the vakalat filed before the District Collector, Karimnagar on 13.09.2006. The second respondent also made false allegation that in O.S.No.2O4 of 2OO5 filed by him before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, wherein in the written statement signature of their father was also forged by the petitioners. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners have neither forged nor deprived the legal rights of the second respondent. The allegations of the complaint do not attract any of the ingredients o[ the offences alleged.

¶50

Learned counsel relied on the following -iudgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:

¶51

ASR,J crlp_3657 2013

¶52

¶53

i) Kishan Singh v.Gurpal Singht ii) Randheer Singh v.State of U.P2 iii) Mohammed Ibrahim v.State of Bihar.3 iu) Babu Venkatesh v.State of Karnatakaa v) Nand Kumar Verma v.State of Chattisgarh through Police Station City Kotwalis.

¶54

On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the allegations in the complaint make out prima facie case for the alleged offences. He relied on the following decisions:

¶55

i) Imitaz Ahmade v.Statc of UF

¶56

iil State of Telangana r,.Habib Abdullah JeelaniT iii) Skoda Auto Volkswagcn India Private Limited r,.The State of Uttar Pradesh8

¶57

iv) State of U.P. v.O.P.Sharmae

¶58

v) M/s.Neeha;ika [nfrastructure kt. Ltd. v.State of Maharashtralo

¶59

vi) Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v.CBI^{I 1}

¶60

vii) Noida Entcrprencurs Association v.Noidatz

¶61

viii) Ravuri Krishna Murthy v.State of telanganal3

¶62

t (2O l0)8 Supreme Court Cases 775

¶63

2 2O2 I SCC Online SC 942

¶64

3 (2OO9l8 Supreme Court Cases 75 1

¶65

a 2022 Live t,aw (SCl l8 I

¶66

3 2022 SCC Online Chh 330

¶67

6 2Ot2 l2l SCC 688

¶68

7 2Ot7 l2l SCC 779

¶69

8 2O2O SCC online 958

¶70

e t996 l7l scc 7os

¶71

to Crl.A-No.330 of 2021, dated 13.O4.2O2 i

¶72

rr crl.A.No. 1375-1376 0f 20I3,dared 28.03.2018

¶73

.\ " WP (C) No. l5O of 1997, dated 09.05.2011

¶74

ASR,.J crlp 3657 20 13

¶75

¶76

¶77

9 . The point that arises for consideration is whether the averments in the complaint even assuming to be true make out ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 42O, 468 and 120-B IPC?

¶78

Section 42O IPC:.

¶79

To constitute an offence under section 42O, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived

¶80

(i) to deliver any property to any person, or

¶81

(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being convcrted into a valuable security.

¶82

It is the case of second respondent that the

¶83

petitioners alleged to have forged the signatures o[ their ON lather before the District Collector, Karimnagar 13.09.2006 and before Senior Civil Judge's Court,

¶84

13 crl.A.No.274 275 of 2et l, dated 05.o3.2021

¶85

¶86

ASR,J crlp,3657_2013

¶87

Karimanagar in the ,vritten statement filed in O.S.No.204 of 2OO5 and before R.D.O., Jagtial on 22.O2.2OO7 .

¶88

Admittedly, the second respondent fi1ed a suit for partition and separate possession against hiS lather and petitioner Nos. I to 3 in O.S.No.2O4 of 20O5 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimangar. It is not the case of the second respondent either by making fa,lse or misleading reprcsentation or by any other action of omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest induceme nt to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induced him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he were not so deceivcd. The ingredients of cheating are not found in the complaint.

¶89

Section 468 IPC:

¶90

To constitutc an offence under Section 468 IPC, the lorgery committed lor the purpose o[ cheating lalls within 1 the purview of this Section and main object of this

¶91

ASR,J crlp 3657 2013

¶92

¶93

provision is to lind whether the accused deceives some onc by making fa-lse documcnts. Coming to the present case, as the allegations of committing forgery of signature of his father and petitioners, the second respondent made bald allegation that the signature of his father was forged before the District Collector, Karimnagar on 13.09.2006 and before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, R.D.O. Jagtial. Admittedly, the father on of petitioners and second respondent died 01.11.2007, whereas the present complaint was lodged on 14.03.20 13. Since the alleged filing of vakalat in proceedings before R.D.O., before the District Collector, Karimnagar on 13.09.2006, the alleged forgery of signature ol his father in the proceedings before Senior Civil Judge's Court, Karimnagar and before R.D.O., Jagityal was on 22.O2.2OO7, by the time, father of the petitioners and second respondent namely Sadasiva Rao was very much aiive. It could, thus, be seen that the alleged complaint was liled almost after a period of six

¶94

12 ASR,J^,. crlp 3657-2013 \

¶95

years from the date of institution o[ suit b-y the second respondent. The allegations of cheating are missing and the ingredients o[ offence of forgery are also not attracted from the averments of the complaint.

¶96

To constitute an offence under Section 120-B IPC, the most important ingredient of oflence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more pcrsons to do an illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of the agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable. The allegations of the complaint do not reveal that the petitioners conspired to commit an illegal act and as the ingredients ol offences under Sections 42b, 468 IPC are missing, the offence under Section I2O-B IPC does not attract.

¶97

In the case of State of Haryana u.Bhajan LaU4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

¶98

"ln the backdrop of the intcrprctation of the various relcvant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of lau, enunciatcd by this Court in a serics of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 2'26 or the

¶99

\ \ 14 1992 supp(1) SCC 335

¶100

¶101

ASR,J crlp_3657_2O 13

¶102

¶103

( ''"

¶104

inherent powers under Section 482 of Lhe code which we havc cxtractcd and reproduccd above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration whcrein such power could be excrcised either to prevent abusc of the process of any Court or otherwise to securc the ends of^justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufhciently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to givc an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶105

(1)	Wheretheallegationsmadein thefirst information reportorthecomplaint,evenif theyaretakenat theirface valueand acceptedinthcirentirety donotprimafacie constituteanyoflenceormakeoutacase againsttheaccused.
(2)	Whercthe allcgationsinthefirstinformation report and othermaterials,il any,
	accompanyingtheFIRdo notdisclosea cognizable olfencc.^justityinganinvestigation by police ofhcersunderSection156(1)ofthe CodeexceptunderanorderofaMagistrate withinthepurviewofSectionI55(2)ofthe Code.
(3)	Wheretheuncontraverted allegationsmade intheFIRorcomplaintandtheevidence collectcdinsupportofthesamedonot disclosethecommissionofanyoffenceand
	makeouta caseagainst theaccused.
14)	Where,theallegationsintheFIRdonot constituteacognizablc offencebutconstitute only a non-cognizableoffence,no
	investigationispermittedbyapoliceofficer without an order o[ aMagistrateas
	contemplatedunder Section 155 (2)ofthe Code.
(s)	Wheretheallegations madeintheFIRor complaintare soabsurdandinherently improbableonLhcbasis ofwhichno prudent personcaneverreachajustconclusionthat
	thereissulficient groundforproceedings againsttheaccused.

\ \

ASR,J crlp 3657 2013

(6) Where there is an express legal bar cngrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or t[-re concerned Act (unde r which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance ol the proceedings and/or where there is a specilic provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of thc aggrievcd party.

¶110

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is rnanifestly attended with mala fide and/or n,hcre the proceeding is maliciously institutetl with an ulterior motive for wre aking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

¶111

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in sevcral decisions,

¶112

while dea,ling with powers of the High Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. held that powers aLre vcry wicle and very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its

¶113

exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its dr:cision in exercise of its power based on sound pI.inciples.

¶114

Keeping in view of the principles relating to exerclse of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and having considered the decisions relied on b,y counsel for both the parties and having perused the material record, this Court is of the view that undisputedly civil suits are

¶115

l5 ASR,J crlp_3657 2O13

¶116

pending between the parties and as the allegations of the complaint prima facie, do not make out ingredients of any of the alleged offences, either to apply pressure on the petitioners or to subject them harassment, the complainant might have attempted to give cloak of criminal olfence of the civil disputes by filing the present complaint. As such, continuation of the present

¶117

proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.

¶118

For the reasons stated above, the Criminal Petition

¶119

1S allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners/A- 1 to A-3 in Cr.No.96 of 2Ol3 of Karimnagar-l Town Police station, Karimnagar, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶120

¶121

SD/-T.KRISHNA^KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @ SECTION OFFICER

¶122

To,

¶123