Allowed

Yenugula Satyanarayana Reddy and 5 Ors. v. the State of Telangana and Another

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022CRLP/3779/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings in a land ownership dispute. Relying on the FSL report confirming the sale deed's authenticity and noting the dispute's civil nature, the court held the matter should be settled via civil litigation, not criminal prosecution. Some petitioners were also dismissed as abated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. B28 of 2015 against all petitioners are quashed, and proceedings against abated petitioners are disposed of.

Yenugula Satyanarayana Reddy and 5 Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3779 0F 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

YENUGULA SATYANARAYANA REDDYS/o Late Brahma Reddy

¶8

Yenugula Yadamma, W/o yenugula Satyanarayana Reddy

¶9

B Srikanth Reddy, S/o B Laxma Reddy

¶10

Baddam Mahender Reddy, S/o B Srikanth Reddy

¶11

Baddam Harshavardhan Reddy, S/o B Srikanth Reddy

¶12

Baddam Srinivas Reddy, S/o B Srikanth Reddy

¶13

...PET|T|ONER/ACCUSED No. 1 & 5 to 9

¶14

AND

¶15

1- THE STATE OF TELANGANA Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court,

¶16

Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶18

K Surender, S/o K Rajgopal, Occ: retired employee, RIo H.No.4_74, Gundlapochampally Village, lr/edchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the lVremorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in cc.No.82} of 2015 on the file of v Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchar, R.R.District through p.s., pet Basheerabad, cyberabadR.R.DistrictvideFrRNo.35'1 of 2014dt.0'r .09.2o14orsHo.,p.s.,pet Basheerabad, Cyberabad.

¶21

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(C RLPMP. NO: 4'190 OF 2016)

¶22

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 grant stay of further proceedings in C.C.No.B28 ol 2015 on the file of V lt4etropolitan [,4agistrate, lr,4edchal, RR District, vide FIR No. 351 of 2014 dated 01-09-2014 of SHO, P.S. Pet Basheerbad, Cyberabad, pending disposal of Quash petition.

¶23

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petitlon and upon hearing the arguments of Sri J. Suresh Babu representing M/S LEGOAL LAW SERVICES ,Advocate for the petitioner and lhe Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Ganesh, Advocate representing Sri. Allam Ramesh for the Respondent No. 2.

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN

¶26

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3779 of 2016

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This petition is liled bi, A1 and A5 to A9 seeking quashment of charge sheet in C.C.No.B28 of 2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ralga Reddy District.

¶29

The facts in brief as can be seen from the record are that the de-facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court stating that originally father of the de-facto complainant by name K. Rajgopal has purchased land admeasuring Ac.B.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.7O2, 7O3, 7O4, 706 and ZO7 of Gundlapochampally Village from previous owners Laxrai Reddy and others from 02.09.1956 under registered sale deed and from the said date the said Rajgopal has been in possession ald enjoyment of the land. In the year 1979, tlne said Rajgopal has mortgage the land to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societ5r Limited, Dulapally and borrowed the loan and subsequently, the said Rajgopal has cleared the loan in the year 1983. On 18.O2.L992, the said R4jgopai passed away. It is also alleged in the complaint by the de-facto compiainant that during the life time the said Rajgopal has not executed any document in favour of anybodt alienating the said property of Ac.8.36 guntas. In the

¶30

¶31

month of April, 2013 when^{the de-factocomplainant and his} family members approached^{the Tahsildar for getting their} narnes mutated in the^{revenue records,they found that A1 to} A11 their names are^{incorporated in respect of Ac.8.36 guntas in} Sy.Nos.7O2, 7O3, 7O4,^{706 and 7O7 of Gundlapochampally} village. According to the^{de-factocomplainantthe accused} persons have forged and^{created the documents impersonating} the said K. Rajgopal and^{created the documentsand therefore,} sought the Court^{to take cognizance of the offence'}

¶32

The said complaint was^{referredto the police of Pet} Basheerabad, Cyberabad^{and the police have registeredthe} sarne as FiR in Crime No.351^{ol 2Ol4 for the offences under} Sections 417,419,42O,465,468,471^read "r'ith^{120 B IPC'} After completion of infestation^{the police have filed a final report} stating that the complaint^{is being closedas civil in nature'A} notice has been given to the^{de-facto complainanton which a} protest petition is filed under^{Section2O2 Cr'P.C', and the} statements of the de-facto^{complainantand some other} witnesses were filed before the^{Court and after considering the} same, PWs.1 to 3 were examined^{and after considering the same,} the trial Court has taken^{cognizance of the offencesagainstthe} petitioners and other accused.

¶33

.-?

¶34

t Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed seeking quashment on the following grounds.

¶35

Petitioner No. i has purchased land to an extent of Ac.B.36 guntas in Sy.Nos.7O2, ZO3, ZO4, 706 arrd ZOZ of Gundlapochampaliy village by registered sale deed from K.Rajgopal vide document No.2568 of 19BO dated 10.11.198O. It is stated that in the year 19Z5-76 the said Rajgopal then then original owner has borrowed loan from the cooperative society and created a charge. When the said Rajgopal was in need of money , he approached petitioner No. 1 /A 1 and requested to advance money in order to discharge the loan to the cooperative balk and also expressed that he would sell the land to petitioner No.1/A1 for a sum of Rs.4B,OOO/-. petitioner No.1/A1 has paid Rs.2O,OOO/- as an advance to Rajgopal on 29.09.1980 with which he has cleared the loan of Cooperative society Bank and obtained No Due Certificate on 13.10.1980. Subsequentiy, the petitioner No. 1/A1 has paid the balance sale consideration before the Sub-Registrar, Medchal on which the said K. Rajgopal has executed a registered sale deed vide document No.256g of 1980 dated 10.11.1980.

¶36

6 The de-facto complainant is having the knowledge of the tralsaction and since the date of purchase, the de_facto

¶37

¶38

complainant and his family members kept quite ald after lapse of 12 yr:ars, the issue has been raised on the false grounds. It is also submitted that A5 to A9 vgere not even borne as on the date of transaction of purchase of the property by Al on 10.11.1980 and there are no ingredients of all the offences against them and therefore sought for quashemnt of the criminal case.

¶39

Hcard both sides and perused the record.

¶40

B. Nor.r', the point for determination is whether the proceedings in C.C.No.B2B of 2015 against.the petitioners can be quashed?

¶41

It is submitted during the course of arguments that out of the six petitioners herein, petitioner Nos. I and 2 i.e., Al and A5 passed away during the pendency of the petition ald they are no longer and therefore case against ,{1 and A5 has to be dismissed as abated. The rest of the accused are A6 to A9 who are shown as petitioner Nos.3 to 6.

¶42

There is no dispute originally the land belongs to K.Rajgopal, r.r,ho has purchased the same on 02.09.1956 from his previous owner Laxma Reddy and others in Sy.Nos.7O2,703, 7O4, 706 and 707 of Gundlapochampally village to an extent of Ac.B.36 guntas. There is also no dispute that K. Rqjgopal has

¶43

)

¶44

availed loan frorn Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Dulapally by mortgaging the said land. According to the de-facto complainant the said Rajgopal has discharged the safle amount in the year 1983 af1d he has not executed any document alienating the property to alybody including petitioner No.1/A1 and the document through which petitioner No. 1/A1 stated to have been purchased from K. Rajgopal is creatcd by way ol forgery and therefore sought lor taking action against the petitioners.

¶45

1 1. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de-facto complainant's father K.Rajgopal sold the property for a valid sale consideration under registered sa-le deed bearing No.2568 of 1980 on 10.1 1.1980 and thereby all the allegations against the petitioners are false.

¶46

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed additional documents. Once of the document is copy of the letter of SHO, Pet Basheerabad Police Station dated 20.11.2014 requesting the learned Magistrate to address a letter to SRO, Medchal directing him to send the document No.299/1979, Book No. 1, Volume No.2O4, Page No.367, dated 15.02.1979, document No.256Bl 1980, Book No. 1, Volume'No.274, Pages No.147 to 151, dated 11.11.1980 to send

¶47

()

¶48

the same to forensic science laboratory for comparing the signatures and tl-rumb impression of Rajgopal. Accordingly, the learned XXII Aclditional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad has sent those documents to the hand writing experts. It is to be noted that according to the de-facto complainalt the document bearing No.256B of 1980 dated 10.11.1980 is the document is created by way of forgery by the petitioners. The forensic science laboratory after analysing the signature and thumb mark on the disputed document has addressed a letter to the learned Magistrate dated 22.O4.2019 giving the opinion as under:

¶49

"The person tvho wrote the red enclosed signatures marked S 1 to S8 also wrote the red encloseci signatures marked Q1 to Q19."

¶50

Therefore, the disputed signature on document No.2568 of 1980 dated 1O.l1.1980 is tallied with the admitted signature of Rajgopal. Therefore, on perusal of the FSL report, it is clear that the father of tl-re de-facto complainant Rajgopal himself has executed the document in favour of petitioner No. 1 /A 1 . Therefore, when the father of the de-facto complainant himself has executed the document, then whole contention of the defacto complainant that the petitioners have created the document by rvay of forgery cannot be accepted.

¶51

¶52

Even otherrn'ise, according to the de-facto compiainant, his father Rajgopal died on 18.02.1992. Normally, after the death of the father the de-facto complainant and his family members takes possession of the land and continue to cultivate the land and most of the time, they would see that the lega-l heirs of the Rajgopal incorporated or mutated in respect of Sy.Nos.702, 7O3, 7O4, 706 and 7O7 of Gundlapochampally village to an extent of Ac.B.36 guntas.

¶53

In the case on hand, according to the petitioners, during the life time of Rajgopal, they have purchased the land on 10.11.1980 itself. Therefore, 12 years prior to the death of Rajgopal, the land was taken into possession by the petitioners. So 12 years prior to the death of Rajgopal and 13 years subsequently until April, 2013 in all so many years, the de-facto complainalt has not taken any steps in respect of the said land. According to the documents filed by the petitioners the pattadar passbooks and other documents were given in favour of the petitioners and the names of the petitioners have been incorporated in the revenue records. If really the de-facto complainant and his family members are legal heirs, they should continue to possess and cultivate the land ald in case if other narnes are there, they must agitate and according to the de-facto

¶54

r-_l

¶55

complainant in April, 2013 he realized that the names of the petitioners were incorporated without any reason and thereby a complaint is filed before the Court under various provisions of IPC. Thereiore, the conduct of the de_facto complainant and family members for keeping quite for more than 2O years and suddenly filing a complaint that his father,s signature was forged is not at all c.onvincing.

¶56

Even if the narnes of the petitioners are falsely incorporated, the de_facto complainant is expected to file a suit in a competent civil Court lor cancellation of the registered sale deed which was alreged to have been executed in favour of petitioner No.1/A1. The de_facto complainant has filed the complaint before the police in the year 2O 15. The de-facto complainant can file a complaint before the police in case if he suspects any forgery by the petitioners. However, even if ultimately the charge sheet is filed, the accused is punished, still the registered sale deed standing in favour of petitioner No. 1 dated 10.11.1980 vide document No.256B of 19g0 still hanging in favour of the petitioners. Even if a_11 the petitioners are convicted, unless and until the said document is cancelled by way of competent civil Court, still the petitioners can continue to be the owners of the property in the revenue records. Therefore,

¶57

¶58

the de-facto complainant should have Iiled a civil suit for cancellation of the said sale deed, but no attempt was made. It clearly go to show that the petitioners are not interested in getting the sale deed canceiled, but interested some how to arm twist the petitioners in order to corner them may be for a purpose of some negotiations with the petitioners. So the conduct of the de-facto complainant non-filing of a civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed a-lso speaks volumes in respect of the intention of the de-facto complainant.

¶59

Even otherwise, it is a case where the land a1legedly belonging to the de-facto complainant is in possession of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the father of the de_ facto complainant sold the property in their favour, whereas according to the de-facto complainant the document through the petitioners are claiming right is a created one. Therefore, it is a civii dispute between the parties. The civil court will also decide whether the father of the de-facto complainant has really sold the property in favour of petitioner No.1/Al or not. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The de_ facto complainant has converted the civil dispute into criminal CASE.

¶60

¶61

According to the de-facto complainant, the offence committed on account of creating of a sale deed by petitioner No.1/A1 on l0.i 1.1980 u,hen the document bearing No.2568 of 1980 was created. Therefore, even if at all there is a grievance, the grievance shall be only against petitioner No.1/A1. In entire complaint no u,here it is explained as to rest of the petitioners would relate to the aliegations made against them.

¶62

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioner Nos.4 to 6l AZ to A9 are aged about 33, 31 and 29 years respectively. They were not even borne as on the date of execution of the alleged forged sa_le deed. Therefore, when they were not even borne, strangely they were also made parties. In fact, as observed above, if at all any forgery was done, it was done by petitioner No. 1 /A1 and witnesses to the said document ald other connected persons. But, except petitioner No. 1/A1, the de-facto complainant did not mention any role played by them in alleged forgery of document. Therefore, when there are no overt acts at all taking cognizance against the other accused merely because their names are incorporated in the revenue records, it cannot be said that they are also part of the sale deed. Incorporating the name of all the petitioners is on account of the sale deed dated 10.11.19g0

¶63

¶64

bearing document No.256B of 1980 and their narnes have been incorporated as family members of petitioner No. 1 . Therefore, other petitioners cannot be attributed as the co-conspirators in the alleged forgery.

¶65

The very document, which is in dispute, has been adjudged by the forensic science laboratory is not a forged document, therefore, all the allegations 1evelled against the petitioners may go

¶66

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed arrd the proceedings against the petitioners/A1, A5 to A,9 in C.C.No.B2g of 2015 on the file of V Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.

¶67

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stald closed.

Sd/- M. MANJULA

DEPUTY REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

'1. The Vth Metropolitan l\rlagistrate,Medchal, Cyberabad

¶75

2 The Station House officer, pet Basheerbad porice station, pet Basheerabad, Cyberabad.

¶76

Two CCs to the public prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶77

Two CD Copies

¶78

One CC to SRt. M/S LEGOAL LAW SERVTCES Advocate tOpUCl

¶79

One CC to SRI ALLAM RATVESH Advocate [OPUC]

VH({

HIGH COURT

DNRJ

DATED: 1711012022

STA T€
i t.t
( a<
i 23 rtrzou'
. a<:i

¶85

ORDER

¶86

CRLP.No.3779 of 2016

¶87

Allowing the Criminal Petition

¶88

a)
./

Yenugula Satyanarayana Reddy and 5 Ors. v. the State of Telangana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yenugula Satyanarayana Reddy and 5 Ors. v. the State of Telangana and Another

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

Smt T.Aruna Kumari Vs State of Telangana and Another

Smt T.Aruna Kumari, Hyderabad Vs State of Ts., Rep. by P.P. and Another

G.Satyanarayana Vs the State of A.P.

Sri v.Govinda Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd Shahabuddin and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

Smt Maligireddy Alivelu and Another Vs the Inspector of Factories and Another