Allowed

Mohammad Afzal v. the State of A.P. and Another

Telangana HC28 Jan 2022CRLP/4763/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR for cheating and forgery. Court held that secondary complainant failed to conduct preliminary enquiry and could not state how petitioner was implicated, amounting to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in FIR No. 281 of 2013 on file of Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad against the petitioner.

Mohammad Afzal Vs the State of A.P. and Another — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITI ON NO: 4763 OF 2013

¶6

Between:

¶7

!-ohqmmad^{Afzal,S/o.l,4ohd.Sajeed,age4.1 years, Occ:business,} R/o. 19-4281 lF I 1 1, Jahanuma Nawab Saheb'Kunta, Bahadlrpura, Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED.l

¶9

AND

¶10

'1 . The State Of A.P., Rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, at Hyderabad.

¶11

Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Saroornagar I/andal, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO.COMPLAINANT

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the FIR in Crime.No.2B1 of 2013 on the file of the Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad in so far as the petitioner (Al ) is concerned to meet the ends of justice.

¶14

CRLPMP. NO: 4311 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 grant stay of all further^proceedings including arrest and appearance of^the petitioner (A-1) in Crime No. 281 of 2013 on the file of the Saroornagar Police Station, Cyberabad,^pending disposal of the criminal^petition in^{the interest of} justice.

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon^perusing the^{[vlemorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri JITHENDER} RAO VEERAIMALLA ,Advocate^{for the Petitioner and the AssistantPublic Prosecutor} on behalf of the Respondent^No1.

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE^{DT. JUSTICEG. RADHA RANI} CRIMINAL PETITION^{No.4763 of2013}

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This petition is filed by^{the petitioner} -^{A1 under Section 482} Cr.P.C. to quash the^{proceedingsin Crime No.281of 2013 on the file} of Saroonagar Police Station,^{Cyberabad,registered against him for} the offences under Section s 420,^{464, 465, 468, 471 and 472\PC.}

¶21

The case of the^petitioner in brief^{was that the 2nd} respondent, Deputy Collector and^{Tahsildar of SaroomagarMandal,} lodged a report before the police on 30.04.2013^{at 6.00 PM stating} that a news item was published in 'Namasthe Telangana'^Telugu Daily Newspaper, Hyderabad Edition under the caption "Nakili Pattala Danda" and one Mr. Suresh was stated to have informed to the press that by coilecting Rs.40,000/-, Indiramma House Site Patta was issued by one Mr. Afzal in the premises of Saroornagar Tahsildar office by showing a place near TKR College and they must be fake and fabricated cerlificates. No house site pattas were issued by the complainant i.e. Deputy Collector and Tahsildar of Saroornagar Mandal on27.04.2013. He enclosed a copy of the news clipping to the said report. Basing on the same, police registered the above case for the above offences.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petrtloner was no way concemed with the alleged offences. His name

¶24

2 - D.GRR,./

¶25

was nowhere mentioned in the press statement rnade by A2. Even as per the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the i,rrespondent, he had not verified an)'thing about the offences and how he came to know about the name of the petitioner was not explained. Even if the statement made by A.2 in the newspaper and the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to l't respondent were taken as true and correct on their face value, the case against the petitioner was not established. A.2 had given an affidavit denying the involvement of -.A.1 and specifically stated in the said affidavit that he did not know the petitioner and his involvement was not there, as such, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner would amount to abuse ofprocess of law and prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner'. Leamed counsel further submitted that the petitioner was a Real Estate businessman and was having some differences with the 2"d respondent in his business dealings hence, he was falsely implicated in the case.

¶26

Leamed Assistant Public Prosecutol reported^{to decidethe} petition on merits.

¶27

Perused the record. In the^{newspaperclippingenclosed by} the complainant - 2nd respondent,^{the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar} of Saroornagar Mandal,^{the name of the petitioneras the person, who} gave patta was not stated by Suresh^{Kumar,the alleged victim.} Mr.Suresh Kumar stated that^{a broker had collected Rs.40,000/- from} him and had shown him^{a plotnear TKR College as going to be}

¶28

Dr Clll,J 3 Crlp.Na^t763ol2al3

¶29

¶30

i I

¶31

allotted to^{him and gave him a patta' Similarlyseveral pattas were} sold to some^{more people.The news paper report wouldfurther'} disclose that the brokers^{were making them believe that they were} having good relations^{withrevenue officials,as such theypaid money'} The news paper clipping would futher^{disclose that to makethe} beneficiaries believe them, the brokers were^{taking them to Tahsil} office before issuing pattas and were moving with the^{officialsvery} closely.

¶32

No preliminary enquiry was conducted by the 2nd respondent into the incident and how he came to know about the name of the petitioner - A1 along with his phone number as the person who issued the fabricated patta to Suresh Kumar, was not stated by him. The said Suresh Kumar gave a notarized affidavit on 05.05.2013 stating that it was one Abdul who introduced himself to be an agent and doing liaison work induced hirn with a false promise to do the needful work and that he was having good relations with the revenue officials, collected money from him. He furlher stated that Afzal, the petitioner herein was not tJre person whom he met and he never met him" As the 2nd respondent ought to have conducted preliminary enquiry independently and had to state on what basis he had named the petitioner as an accused in the above case but failed to state the same, it is considered fit to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.281 of 2013 on the file of Saroomagar police Station.

¶33

¶34

! !

¶35

Dr.GRlt,J
C p.No t763 oI20l3

¶36

In the result, the Criminal^petition is allowed quashing the

¶37

proceedings in FIR No.281 of 2013 on the t'ile of the Saroornagar

¶38

Police Station, Cyberabad agairlst the petitioner - Al.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

SD/-T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYil

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Xl triletropolitan l,4agistrate at L.B.Nagar, Cyberabad.

¶45

The Station House Officer, ,, Saroornagar police Station , Cyberabad.

¶46

Two CCs to Assistant Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶47

One CC to SRl. JITHENDER RAO VEERAMALLA, Advocate tOpUCl

¶48

Two CD Copies

¶49

One spare Copy

CDL TR 4A--.k

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810112022

ORDER

CRLP.No.4763 ot²⁰¹³

1d i STATA
(
cf
1 4 rtB 2822
t.t

¶56

ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL^PETITION

¶57

4 1."
P
$"ir,

Mohammad Afzal v. the State of A.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Afzal v. the State of A.P. 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

M. Satish Kumar, R.R.Dist. Vs P.P., Hyd and Ano

Sri Barmavath Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

G.Mahipal Reddy and Another Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

Kalam Jeevan Kumar Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and another

Smt.Godasu Jayashree Vs The State of Telangana

Thonee Michael , Mahesh, Vs The State of A.P.