Dismissed

V.Murali Krishna v. Sri M.Yadi Reddy and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022CRLP/6503/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a Criminal Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that prima facie material exists against the accused alleging forgery of revenue records and thus the case cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., remitting the matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 6503 of 2017 dismissed; trial court to proceed with C.C. No. 1050 of 2016 on merits.

V.Murali Krishna Vs Sri M.Yadi Reddy and State of… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

[/ONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶5

CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 6503 OF 2017

¶6

Between:

¶7

V. Murali Krishna, S/o. Raghavaiah,^{Managing Partner' M/s Kalyan} Constructions, Rl/o. H.No.8-2-741A1N16,^{Plot No.47, B.N.Reddy Colony, Road} No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶8

.. Petitioner/Accused

¶9

AND

¶10

'l . Sri M.Yadi Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, aged 68 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.4-91 , Yapral Village Malkajgiri^{Mandal, RangareddyDistrict.}

¶11

...Respondent No.1/ComPlainant

¶12

The State of Telangana, represented by^{the Public Prosecutor'High-Courtof} Judicature, at Hyderabad for the^{State of Telanganaandthe State of Andhra} Pradesh.

¶13

...RespondenURespondent

¶14

Petition under Section 482 ol Cr.P.C^{praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of^{Groundsof Criminal Petition, the High Court may} be pleased to^quash C.C.No.1050^{of 2016on the file of the XX Metropolitan} Magistrate Court at [t/alkajgiri,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶15

l.A. NO:'l O F 2017(CRLPMP. NO: 66^{99 0F 2017)}

¶16

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^{proceedingsin C.C.No.1050of 2016 on the file of} the XX Metropolitan Magistrate Court,^{at Malkajgiri,RangaReddy District.}

¶17

l.A. NO:1 OF^20'19

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^High Court^may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No 1050 of 2016 on the file of the XX lvletropolitan Magistrate Court at Malkajgiri, including the appearance of the^petitioner.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2022

¶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 permit the petitioner to file additional documents and the same may be received and placed on record in Criminal Petition No.6503 of 2017.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.2 and of Sri M. PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.1

¶22

The Court made thr: following: ORDER

¶23

--f

¶24

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶25

CRIMINAL PETITION No.65O3 of 2Ol7

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner-accused No. 1 to quash C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the hle of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, the cognizance of which was taken for the offences under Sections l2O-8, 406, 42O, 468 ofthe Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The facts in brief as can be seen from the charge sheet are as under:

¶29

a) Respondent No. 1 - de-facto complainant has fi1ed a private complaint before the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri alleging that grandfather of respondent No. l-de-facto complainant by name Manda Raghava Reddy was the protected tenant of lands in Sy.No.630 admeasuring Ac.12.06 guntas of Yapral village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. However, suddenly the names of Dokuri Rami Reddy (accused No.4), Dokuri Malla Reddy (accused No.3), Dokuri Ravinder Reddy (accused No.2) appeared

¶30

¶31

in thc revcnue records without any proceedings from the revenue⁽ lepartment. The de-facto complainant started enquiring as to hou, the names of accused Nos.2 to 4 were entered in the revenue record. On that an attempt was made against hirn. On the complaint of de-facto complainant a case was registered for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code by the Police, Alwal, Secunderabad vide Crime No.278 of 20OO, which was numbered as C.C.No.l2 g13 /2OOO and the same was also disposed of in the year 2005.

¶32

b) Aggrieved by the illegal entries in revenue records, the respondenL No. 1-de-facto complainant has initiated proceedings before MRO, Keesara fo'r succession of the tenancy, eviction ald ffor delivery of possession. Accordingly, the MRO has issued proceedings No.B/785/2O01, dated 04.O7.2OOt declaring succession in favour o{ de-facto complainant in respect of lands in Sy.No.63O to an extent of Ac. 12.O6 guntas.

¶33

c) A public notice in Telugu daily newspaper was published on 79.03.2022 that V.Murali Krishna (accused No. l) i.e., the petitioner herein and others have agreed to purchase the land belonging to the respondent No. l-de-facto complainant from Dokuri Ravinder Reddy and others and called for objections, if

¶34

-t

¶35

any. T}:e de-facto complainant has replied on 26.03.2002 through his counsel by enclosing copy of the succession granted by MRO vide Proceedings B1785l2OO1, dated O4.O7.2OOL and the said reply was also given to the counsel of accused. Further, no correspondence took place in respect of correctness of the MRO proceedings. However, even after recording the objection of th.e de-facto complainant, the petitioner-accused No.t has purchased the land from accused Nos.2 and 3 and other family members through registered AGP bearing No.5090/2002 dated 25.09.2022. In the said document also there is no mention about the MRO Proceedings of succession in favour of the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant.

¶36

d) Th.e de-facto complainant has fiied W.P.No.9262 of 2OO2 for implementation of orders passed by the MRO vide proceedings No.B/7BSl2O01 and interim orders were passed in the said writ petition restraining alienation of the lands. At the time of filing Writ Petition, de-facto complainant has signed several blank papers. Surprisingly tlrre de-facto complainant came to know that the said Writ Petition was withdrawn. The de-facto complainant came know about the same, when he filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003 against accused Nos.l to 3 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal,

¶37

¶38

wherein tLLe de-facto complainant has filed copy of an alfidavit allegcdly f"rlerl b5, him beforc the High Court showing that he has received Rs.5,O0,O00/- from accused No.1, out of which Rs.1,00,0O0i- was through cheque and thereby the accused have withdrzrwn thc rvrit Petition No.9262 of 2OO2. Though the signature in the said affidavit belongs to respondent No.1-defacto complainant, the signature on the revenue stamp does not belong to him. Fraudulent documents were filed before the High Court and without consent and knowlcdge of respondent No.1-de-facto complainant, the writ petition was got dismissed.

¶39

e) In the document filed before the High Court, it is mentioned that grar-rdfather of resporldent No.1-de-facto complainant as grandfather of accused Nos.2 to 4. In fact, grandfather of accused Nos.2 and 3 is one Venkat Reddy but not Raghava Reddy. It is mentioned further that in the^partition among the accused dated 19.05. 1993, the land in dispute in Sy. No.630 is not shown. In order to cheat the de-facto complainant, the documents are created and^frled before the High court and before the Junior Civil Judge^{Court at Medchal.}

¶40

f) When the respondent No. l-de-facto complainant has questioned his counsel, he gave evasive reply. T$-e-roceedings

¶41

of MRO dated O4.O7.2O01 and revierv orders dated 1O.O4.2O22 werc also manipulated by the petitioner and other accused including MRO. The respondent No.1-de-facto complainant has applied for copy of the MRO orders dated O4.O7.2OO7 under RTI and on receiving the copy, vide File No.A/RTI/260512O14 ar.d on perusal of the copy and also revenue order which was marked as Ex.B9 before the Junior Civil Judge at Medchal, it is found that one para was added in the order copy, which was not found in original order.^'fhe de-facto complainant has also sought for extract of the proceedings No.B/28O7 l2OOl rn respect of review of the order of MRO for which also another memo dated 10.07.2015,was got issued stating that the said Iile is not available. It is mentioned that MRO in collusion with accused have removed the original order and prepared the revenue order and handed over to accused Nos. 1 to 3.

¶42

g) Il at ail there was withdrawal before the High Court, the proceedings in C.C.No.1661 of 2OO5 initiated by accused No.1 against the respondent No. 1-de-facto complainant and his family members would have been withdrawn ald further criminal complaint in C.C.No. 1913l2OOO initiated by the respondent No. 1-de-facto complainant before the Alwal Police Station against accused Nos.2 and 3 was very much in

¶43

¶44

()

¶45

existence and after trial, the case was disposed of in the year 2005 and dLrring the coursc of cross examination and complaint on 05.O4.2004 also thcre is no mention about the alleged compromise with accused No. 1 or receipt of amount from the accused No. 1.

¶46

h) Based on the said complaint given by respondent No.1_de_ facto complninant, the police have registered a case in Crime No.79O of 2015 for the offence under Sections l9g, 46g,421, 474, 42O of the Indian penal Code. During the course of investigation, the statement of respondent No. 1 _de-facto complainant was recorded, received photostat copies of the MRO procecdings bearihg No.B/Z8S/2OO1 dated O4.OT.2OOl and forged documents, proceedings of MRO liled by the accused in civil cases. A notice was issued to MRO by name G.Subba Rao and having gone through the documents liled by the respondent No. 1-de-facto complainant, the MRO stated that he has issued proceedings B/785/2OOl, dated OT.O4.2OOl, however, he has denied the signature on the review orders and that the signatures do not belong to him and they were created by way of forging the same. The Inspector has also addressed a letter to the Tahsildar, Keesara Mandal to furnish a copy of proceedings No.B/7aS/2O01 dated IO.O4.2O22, which is in

¶47

¶48

¶49

dispute and MRO has furnished^{copy of the sameand he has} also otrtained copy of the orders^{of Ex.B9 submitted by accused} No. I in O.S.No.65 of 20O3 on the file of Junior^{Civil Judge,} Medchal, wherein accused^No. I herein^{has filed forged} documents and accordingly the said suit^{was closed.}

¶50

i) The investigating officer has^recorded the^statementof other witnesses and hled charge^{sheet alleging that accused} Nos. 1 to 12 have committed the^{offences punishable under} Sections l2O-8, 406, 42O, 468 of the^{lndianPenal Code'} Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-accused^{No.1 has hled the} present criminal petition to quash the^{proceedings againsthim} in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of learned^{XX Metropolitan} Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri^{on the following} grounds:

¶51

I) The respondent No.l-de-facto complainant has^{no interest} over the said^property in^{Sy.No.630admeasuring4c.72.O6} guntas of Yapral village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District.^When the respondent No. 1-de-facto complainant^was trylng^to encroach the land, he has filed a^{complaint before Kushaiguda} Police Station on 20.09.2015 vide^{Crime No.674 of 2015 for the}

¶52

¶53

offence under Secrions l2O B, 406, 42O, 42O and 468 of the Indian Pcnal Code and the same is still pending.

¶54

II) The MRO (LW4) himself has filed a complaint against the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant and thc same was registered as FIR in Crime No.214 of 2OO2 and the same is still pending.

¶55

III) The proceedings mentioned by the respondent No. 1_defacto complainant are nothing to do with this case. The allegations against the petitioners are vague.

¶56

IV) The respondent No. l-de-facto complainant has filed W.P.No.9262 of 2OO2 alrd withdrawn.

¶57

V) The petitioner - accused No.t herein is bondafide purchaser and thus, he cannot be roped in a criminal case and therefore, sought for quash of the proceedings against him.

¶58

Now the point for determination is:

¶59

"Whether the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No. 1 in C.C.No. l O5O of 2016 on the fi1e of learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? ,:

¶60

¶61

¶62

Heard Sri Srinivasa^{Rao Madiraju,learnedcounsei for the} petitione r-accuse d No.1^{anci Sri M.PraveenKumar, learned} counsel for^{the respondentNo.1-de-factocomplainant and Sri} S.Ganesh,^{learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.}

¶63

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner-accusedNo'1has} submitted that^{the accused Nos.S to 12 in C.C-No. 105O of 2016} have filed a Criminal^{PetitionNo.6214 of 2Ol9 seeking quashof} the proceedings^{against them bymakingthede-facto} complainant as^{respondent No.3 and having considered the} same, this Court^{has quashedthe case against them' It is} further submitted that^{bqsingon the finding in the saidorder,} the petitioner^{is also requiredto be given benehtand thus,case} against him^{is sought to be quashed.It is to be noted that the} originally the^{respondentNo.1-de-factocomplainanthas fileda} private complaint^{againstaccusedNos. I to 4. Accused No'l is} the purchaser^{and accused Nos.2 and 3 are the vendors, who} have sold the^{property to accusedNo. 1 throughAGP, whereas} accused No.4^{is the MRO, who has given a statementthat his} signature is^{forged insome of the proceedings. Perhaps} considering^{the statementof MRO that he has issued original} proceedings h Bl785l2OO1^{and denied his signaturein}

¶64

¶65

i i

¶66

subsequcnt review orders and other proceedings, the said MRO is shorvn as witness No.4 and deleted from the array of the accused. The Inspector of police, during the course of investigation has found that not only accused Nos.l to 3 but accused Nos.S to 12 are also involved in this case and thus, they were also made as accused to the case. Hence, in the original complaint, there was no allegation about the role of accused Nos.S to 15 and thereby they have hken advantage of the same and filed Criminal petition No.6214 of 2[19and thus, the case against them was quashed.

¶67

ln any case, the facts seeking quashment of the case against the petitioner . and seeking quashment of the case against accused Nos.S to 12 are totally different. Therefore, merely because, case against accused Nos.S to 12 is quashed, that cannot be a ground to quash case qg4ins6 the petitioner_ accused No. 1.

¶68

B As seen from the record, serious allegations are rnq6ts agamst the petitioner by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant from the inception of proceedings No.B/Z8S/2OOt. According to th e respondent No. l _de_facto complainant, originally the iand to an ext:nt of Ac.12.O6 guntas in Sy.No.63O

¶69

)

¶70

¶71

of Alwal Viltage^belor-rgs to his^{grandLrtherby name Raghava} Reddy, who was registered as^{protectedtenant, from whom,the} respondent No.1-de-facto complainant^{has succeededthe said} property. However, accused Nos.2 and 3 got their^names included in respect of the said^property suddenly^{in the revenue} records, on which, an objection was^filed by the^respondent No. l-de-facto complainant belore the^MRO and^therebythe MRO (LW4) has issued proceedings No.B/785/2O01^statingthat respondent No.l-de-facto complainant is the^successorof Raghava Reddy, who was protected tenant and^issued succession of the tenancy vide Proceedings^{No.B/78512OO1.lt} is also mentioned in the said^proceedings that^{accused Nos.2} and 3 are not grandchildren ol^{Raghava Reddy as their} grandfather is one Venkat Reddy. It is also the^{case of} respondent No.l-de-facto complainant that he has^liled W.P.No.9262 of 2OO2 for a direction to implement orders^passed by the MRO in Proceedings No.B/785/2001 and also^{filed a suit} in O.S.No.65 of 20O3 against accused Nos.l to^{3 on the hle of} learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal and in both^the proceedings, the basic document is proceedings No.B/785/2OO1 issued by the MRO. According to^{respondent No. l-de-facto} complainant, in order to^get over the^{MRO proceedings,the}

¶72

accused have colluded with MRO and creatcd a false proceedings as if the proceedings of MRO were revie'a,ed by him and issued other proceedings No.B/28O7 l2OOl contrary to the earlier proceedings No.B/785/2OOl. Based on the said review proceedings, the accused managed to get the suit as well as writ petition dismissed.

¶73

It is alleged by the respondent No. 1-de-facto complainant that the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 colluded with MRO and created number of forged documents in order to cause loss and get the property of the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant. Aggrieved by the review orders, the respondent No. 1-de-facto complainaht has taken up the proceedings under Tenancy Act and it is stated that the tenancy appeal was also dismissed and Writ Petition is filed before the High Court and the same is pending.

¶74

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent purchaser and he is nothing to do with whatever proceedings filed by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainant and the complaint filed by the respondent No.1-de-facto complainan t before the Police is belated one. It is to be noted that the respondent No. l-de-facto complainant has specifically

¶75

¶76

mentioned that^{when the petitioner-accusedNo. Ihas issued} notification stating^{that he is intendingto purchase the land in} Sy.No.630 belonging to the^{respondentNo. 1-de-facto} complainant alleging^{that the saidbelongs to accusedNos.2and} 3 and another, the^{respondent. No. i-de-facto complainanthas} issued reply that the land^{belongs to him and enclose the} proceedings of the MRO vide^{No.B/785/2O01 and after receiving} the said proceedings,^{accused No.1 in collusion with accused} Nos.2 and 3 won over^{MRO (LW4) and created falseand forged} documents in the forum^{of revision.Basing on the said revision} got the landed property. Therefore,^{there are clear allegations} against the petitioner. .According^{to the respondentNo.1-de-} facto complainant, the^{petitioner is the prime accused,who is} responsible for alieged^{forgery of the documents of MRO} proceedings. Therefore, when there are^{such serious allegations} against the petitioner, the^{petitioner cannot say that he is} innocent purchaser.

¶77

In fact, the statement^{of the MROas LW4 is very clear} that signature of original^{proceedings in B/7aSl2OO1belonging} to him but he has^{not signed in other proceedings subsequentiy} and all the documents^{are created.Therefore,when MRO,} whose statement was^recorded that^he is^{not responsible and}

¶78

¶79

that he has not issucd any proceedings including revieu, orders and the Police having investigated the same, found that accused Nos.l to 3 ancl others are responsible for the samc and when there is clear prima-facie material before the Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he is an innocent purchaser-

¶80

The Ilonble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided between State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and othersl, has formulated certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guideiines are:

¶81

"(a) w,here the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if thev are taken at their face value and accepted in iheir entirety do not pima..ilacie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶82

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police oflicers under Section i56(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code:

¶83

(c) where the uncontroverted aliegations made in the FIR or compiaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

'^{tgg2 etn6oa}

I I

(d) $,here the^{allegations in the FIR donot} constitute a cognizable^{cllence but constitute oniy a} non-cognizable^{offence,no investigationis permitteci} by a police oflicer^{q'ithout an order of a l\4agistrate as} contemplated^{underSection155(2)of the Code;}

¶88

(e) where the ailegations^{made inthe FIR or} complaint are^{so absurd and inherentlyimprobable} on the basis of^{which no prudent personcanever} reach a^{justconclusion that there issufficient} ground foi proceeding^{againstthe accused;}

¶89

(0 where there^{is an express legal bar engrafledin} any of the^{provisionsof the Code or the concerned} Aci (under^{which a criminalproceeding is instituted)} to the institution^{and continuance of the proceedings} and/or where^{there is a specificprovisionin the Code} or the concerned^{Act, providing efficacious redress for} the^{grievanceof the aggrieved party;}

¶90

(g) where a criminal^{proceeding ismanifestly} a:itenaed witl.^mata fide^and f^{ot where the proceeding} is maliciously^{instiiutedwith an ulteriormotive for} wreaking vengeance^{on the accused and with a view} to spite t i-^{ar-," to private and personai grudge'"}

¶91

In view of the^{principie laid down abovesaid authority} and in view of^{the facts and circumstances, since there is prima-} facie^{material againstthe petitioner-accusedNo'1and as there} are many factual^{issuesto be triedby the trial Court after ful1-} fledged trial,^{this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits} in this case to^{quash the proceedings againstthe petitionerin} C.C.No.1OSO of^{2016 on the file of learned XX Metropolitan} Magistrate, Ranga^{ReddY District.}

¶92

¶93

¶94

Accordingly the criminal petition is dismissed. Horvever, the trial Court shall proceed with C.C.No.105O of 2016 on the filc ol learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District on merits of the case uninfluenced by the observations and comments made by this Court in this order.

¶95

As a secluel, thc miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand ,:loscd.

¶96

SD/. K.ONESIM DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

The XX^{Metrol'olitan Magistrate' Cyberabad'at Malkajgiri'} 2. The Station^{n<'use officJi]ii"ti*j'o'Police Station' Cyberabad District} 3. Two CCs^{to the p,ufic piosdcutoilffighCourt for the State of Telangana'at} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶102

4 lil"""#i,;^{iR; dRtrutvasRRAoMADIRAJU' Advocate toPucl}

¶103

;. ;; cc i"^{inr. rvl. PRAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate [oPUC]}

¶104

Two CD^CoPies

¶105

One SPare^CoPY

MMK

\ V.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912022

1\
.,<br>1
'ri 1I [[r Z[I7
{+

¶111

ORDER

¶112

CRLP.No.6503 of 2017

¶113

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

¶114

J
o

V.Murali Krishna v. Sri M.Yadi Reddy and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Murali Krishna v. Sri M.Yadi Reddy and State of Telangana, Rep by P.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md. Abdul Razak Vs The State of Telanagana

Mohd. Irfan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Shri. Kotakonda Pitchaiah Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Banavath Ravi and 2 others Vs The State Of Telangana

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, Vs Sri Manda Yadi Reddy

Smt. Hussain Bee Vs The State of Telangana and another