High Court dismissed two Criminal Petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings based on charges of cheating and forgery regarding property titles, holding that fraudulent intent and forgery allegations require a trial on merits.
Both Criminal Petitions dismissed; interim orders dated 30.10.2007 vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FL::BRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYIINO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUIMALATHA
CRINIINAL PETITI ON NOS: 6345 AND ti348 OF 2007
cRL.P.NO.6345 0F 2007
Between:
R.Sudhakar. S/o. R.Sitaramaiah, Business,Rlo.8-3'677I 42,S.K.D.Nagar, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED
AND
..RespondenU Complainant
...RES'.NDENT/RES'.N
'ENT
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying lhatin the circumstances stated in the l,4emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased toquash the criminal complaintCC.No. 44112002 pending on the file of the ll Additlonal Chief l,4etropolitan N.4agistrate, CityCriminal Courts, Hyderabad.
CRLPMP. NO: 4736 0F 2007
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the t.4emorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all furtherproceedings includingpersonalappearanceofthe petitioner/accu sed in CC.No.44112002 on the flie of l1 Additional Chief lVetropolitan I,4agistrate Court, Hyd erabad.
Thjs Petition coming on for hearing, uponperusing the Memorandumof Grounds oI Criminal Petition and uponhearing thearguments of Sri SHARAD SANGHI. Advocate for thePetitioner and of the Assistarrt Public Prosecutoron behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri BankallalMandh::ni. Advocaiefor the Respondent No.1.
cRL.P.NO.6348 0F 2007:
Between
S.A.Ghani, S/o.S.A.Gafoor, Business,R/o.H.No.11-5-414/1, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ........Petitioner
And
Petilion under Section 482 of Cr.P.Cpraying thalin thecircumstances staled in the Memorandum of Grounds of CriminalPetition, the High Court may be pleased toquash the criminal complaint CC.N1.44212002 pending on the file of thell Additional Chief [,4etropolitan l\4agistrate, CityCriminalCourts, Hyderabad.
2
CRLPMP. NO: 4737 OF 2007
Petition under Section.182 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courl may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including personal appearance of the petitioner/accused in CC.No.442l2002 on the file of ll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad
This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the l'/emorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SHARAD SANGHI, Advocate for the Petilioner and of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6345 and 6348 of 2OO7
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.6345 is frlcd seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No..1.l I of 2OO2 u,hich is pending on the file ol II Addrrional Chiel Metropolitan Magistrate, Cit_v Criminal Courrts. l lvderabad. Criminal Petition No.634B of 2OO7 is filed seel<ing to qr-rash all further proceedings in C.C.No.442 of 2OO2 which is pending on the file of II Additior.ral Chief Metropoiitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts, Llyderabad. Both the petitions are filed by the respective Accused in the Calendar Cases.
I)r a:l_.1 crL l, , ,(,lJ.i x|d 6.rJs,,l l(tr)7
I)i CSI ..1
( rll,(.1.1i r.J r)ttr (jl li){r"
tenants even after purchase of the property by respondent No. 1/complainants. Respondent No. I in both the Criminal Petitions i.e. the compiainants purchased the above mentioned property through registered Sale Deeds dated 30.06. 1999. After they entered into Agreement of Sale '"r'ith [heir vetrdors, the5r addressed a letter to the Accused intimating about the Agreement of Sale entered into and the Accused received their letter, br-rt they never replied. After registration of the Sale Deerl, irgain communication \,as given to the Accused and the Accused u,ere called upon to pay arrears as rvell as future rents, but they did not choose to reply.
I).( St.t '+ ( rl i) ,i\ /.11: iinLl ,,l.ls 1.1 lrri)-
orders by misrepresenting Court. They tried to grab and usurp the propert_v. The vendors of respondent No. 1/complainants arcldressed a letter to the Commissioner and I.G. of Registration and Stamps, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, seeking to examine and furnish the details of the Non-judicial Stamps of denomination Rs.SO/- each, which were alleged to have been purchased from the stamp vendor, by name P. Rakesh. The Commissioner and I.G. of Registration and Stamps gave a reply giving the details. By the details given, it is clear that the stamp vendor colluded with the Accused and sold the Non-judicial Stamps, which were used for the alleged Agreement of Sale, rvhich is said to have been executed by late M. Padmanabha Rao.
B. The complaints liied ri,ith the above averments formed basis for th e Court to take cognizance of the
.: Dr.(\LJ Crl I' Nos 61.15 xnd(\l ls ol l{)l)l
oflences punishable under Sections 418, 42O, 46a, 47 l and 475 of IPC against the petitioners/Accused herein. As earlier cliscussed, C.C. No.442 ol 2002 is pendir-rg against the petitioner/Accused in Crl.P.No.6348 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.441 of 2OO2 is pending against the petitioner/ Accused in Crl.P.No.6345 of 2OO7
Wheth.er basingl on the facts oJ the case and the circumstances projected, the proceedings in Calendar CcLses are liable to be quashed, as prayecl for.
6 l)( \L ( r|I,\lj. r: ti.,,t /jr.1\ t,r,1r I
Court or for securitrg the ends of justice, the inherent power granted to thc High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised. In the case on hand, the allegation is that thc Accused by forging ar.rd fabricating the Agreements of Sale tried to usurp the propertv of late M. Padmanabha Rao and further they misled the Court. The version of the complainants in both the cases is that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 4lB, 42O, 468, 47 I and 475 of IPC.
1 Dr. CSL.J Crl P.Nos 6,]45 and 611$ ot?007
punishment would be imposed in the same manner as if the Accused has forged such doc,-rment. Counterleiting device or mark used lor authenticarting documents, u,hich are described in Section 467 IPC are made punishable under Section 475 IPC
Dr CSI J 3 Crl.l'Nos.6J45 .rnd 6348 (,l2007
eviction were disnt issed and the suits for specific performance were :rlso dismissed for non-prosecution. He a-1so submits that the letters to the Department of Stamps and Registration were not addressed by the legal representatives of late M. Padmanabha Rao and the sum and substance of the tenor of the complaints does not reveal commission of any offence by the petitioners herein and, therefore, the proceedings against them are unjustifiable. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that there is no nec,essity for an Agreement of Sale to be executed on a stamp paper and execution of Agreement of Sale over a vi'hite par pcr is sufficient and, indeecl, the said Agreements of Sale \vcre never put into service or used by the petitioners herein and, therefore, it cannot be held that they used those documents to mislead the Courts or to cause loss to the complainants. The learned counsel also contends that late M. Padmanabha Rao is an Advocate by profession and, therefore, he cannot be misled. He also submits that the stamp vendor is not arrayed as an Accused. Learned counsel also submits that the suit for eviction filed by the private respondents in both the cases
Dr. CSt-.J C P.Nos.6315 and 6118 ol'l()07
9
stood dismissed ald the appeals filed by them also stood dismissed and thus, they attained linality and having lost their battle before the Civil Court, respondent No.1/complainants gave the present complaints to bring the petitioners/Accused to therr terms, as such, said complaints are not maintainable. Learned counsel also contends that for a civil remed-,, crir:rinal proceedings are initiated.
t0 D. CSI I Cri.P.Nos(,145 arrd()148 ol 2U)7
cases, learned counsel for the private respondents submits that the stamped documents were created by the petitioners and the signature ol late M. Padmanabha Rao was forged and thus, the Agreements of Sale are fabricated and created documents. Learned counsel further contends that the son of late M. Padmanabha Rao gave evidence as PW.4 in R.C.No.460 of 2OO7, nhich '"vas filed against the petitioner/Accused in Crl.P.No.6348 of 2OO7 and in the said evidence, he clearly deposed that his father late M. Padmanabha Rao did not enter .into anv Agreements of Sale with the petitioners herein. He also states that the Agreements of SaIe over which the petitioners relies upon were not confrontecl to the said witness at that point of time. In reply to the submission that the Rent Control Case was dismissed, learned counsel for the private respondents stated that the Rent Control Case stood dismissed due to change in pecuniary jurisdiction, which u,as brought into effect through an amendment to Rent Control Act. He further raised different contentions pointing out both the criminal petitions. Tl-re contention of learned counsel for
ll l)r CSL.J Crl l, Nos 6145 nnd 6llli ol1007
respondent No.1 in Cr1.P.No.6345 ol 2OO7 is that the Agreement of Sale dated 22.12. 1995 is on two stamp papers of Rs.50/- denomination each. He stated that the said stamp papers reveal that they werepurchased by late M. Padmanabha Rao on 15.11.1995, but indeed, he has not purchased the said stamps. Learned counselsubmits that a letter was addressed by thevendors of respondent No. 1 on 07 .O4.2OOO to the Comnrissioner andI.G. of Registration and Stamps requestirrg to examineand furnish the details of those tu'o Non-judicialstamps bearing Sl.Nos.94i2 and 94 14 and:rreplyu'as givenby the Commissioner and LG. of Registration andStampsstating that the person from whom those starnpswere purchased, by name P. Rakesh, started stampvending businesswith stamp endorsement starting from S1.No. 1,dated 21.06.1995 and ended at S1.No.2979, dated 30.i2.1995 and thus, in the year 1995 no such stampswith Sl.No.94 12 and 9414 vvere sold by the said stampvendor. He submits that by the above information,it can easilybe presumecl that thosetrvo Non-judiciarl Stamps '*'ere nsed subsequentlvancl the Agreement of Sale u'as createdby
t2 Dr CSL.J Crl I'.\os 6115 nd 6-l4lt ol 2007
forging the signature of late M. Padmanabha Rao to grab the property wrongfully. Similar submission is made regarding Crl.P.No.6348 of 2OO7 only with a variation that the stamps therein are bearing Sl.Nos. l44ll and 14412 and the Commissionr:r and I.G. of Registration ancl Stamps gave reply to the said letter stating that the stamp vendor, by name P. Rakesh clr-rring the year 1995 started stamp vending business ri.ith Sl.No. i, ciated 21.06.1995 and ended at S1.No.2979, dated 30. l2.1gg| and the serial numbers mentioned, which are of the year l99S as projected by the petitioners, were noJ sold during that year.
I.l I)r( \l .l a rl P \1N n rli .!r,1 6 .1\ ,,1 :rri_
Agreements. A meticr-rlous pc-rlrsal of the facts in O.S.Nos.4075 and 4O76 of 1999 revr:als.justificarion in the submission of the learned counsel lor respondent No. 1 . T1-r e er-rtire averments ir-r the suits and the reliefs sor-rght by the petitioners herein revolves arolln cl the said Agreements of Sale. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners tl-rat those Agreements of Sale rvere no1 relied upon or used cannot be appreciated.
I)r( St.l ( rl I' , . h rl5 irnrt .l.ts r,t :r)ol
l.+
"30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracitv of a prayer for quashment raised'by an accused by it-rvoking the porver vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:
30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterlir-rg and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step tu o: ,uvhether the material relied Lrpon b,v the erccused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to rc.ject and overrule the factual assertions cor-itarined in the compiaint i.c. the material is such as would persuacle a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis ol'the accusations as false?
I Criminal Appeal No.56 of20l9. tlatcd ll.0l 2019
Dr(\l .l ( | l'] {\ hl.l5.,|.lr,lJ.,alfr-
l-i
30.3. Step three: u'hether tlrr: material reliecl upon bv the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution / complain an r; and/or the material is sucl-r that it c.inn()t be justifiabl-r. refnted b1, the prosecution/ r:ornplainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding r,r'ith the trial u,or-rld result in an abust: of process of the court, and wouid not serve the ends ofjustice?
30.5. If the ans',ver to a1l tl-re steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of pou,er vested in it under Sectionzl82 CrPC. Such exercise ol power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save preciours court time, which rn,ould otherwise be r,vasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially u,hen it is clear that the same would not conclude in tl-re conviction of the accused."
L6 l):( \t I
(r l' ,. rir li. r!l /.rlL{LLj '\lil'i
and tried to establish their version for getting the relief of specific performance of contract. Pimafacie case and triable issues are for.rnd. Therefore, this Court is of the vieu, that rt is not desirai)1e to quash the proceedings at the initial stage, '"vhich r-rltimately closes all the doors for the trutll to come out.
Sd/-K.SAILESHI
ASSISTANTREGI RAR //TRUE COPY//
SECTI FICER
To
HIGH COURT
DArEO:03102t2022
JUDGMENT
lrrE J r ,q f\q- o',t
!
,l
1 APR 202 ci
i
*
1.I
CRLP.Nos.6345 and 6348 of 2007
DISMISSING THE CRL.P'S
Pw-
!i
.,; "
0
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings on charges of cheating and forgery arising from disputes over title to property should be quashed at the initial stage.
Whether genuineness of documentary evidence establishing forgery can be conclusively determined within the confines of a quashing petition.
Whether there exist triable issues of fact and law requiring a trial to determine truth rather than termination of proceedings before Trial Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R. Sudhakar
Navneet Das Mundada
The State of Andhra Pradesh
S.A. Ghani
Pushpa Devi
Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
