Dismissed

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, v. Sri Manda Yadi Reddy

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022CRLP/7084/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner-accused sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging involvement in forgery and property fraud. The court analyzed the Bhajan Lal guidelines and observed prima facie material against the accused. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the trial was directed to proceed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; trial to proceed on merits.

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, Vs Sri Manda… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY,^{THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYTWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN}

¶5

CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNO: 7084 OF 2017}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Dokuri^{RavinderReddy, S/o NarsimhaRe'ldvaoed 40 vears'} Occ:Business,^{ny". piot'i"o]85,nZghr"ikrlyJnpuriYapial VIllage,Malkajgiri} Mandal, Ranga^{ReddYDistrict'}

¶8

..Petitioner/Accused^No.2

¶9

AND

¶10

Sri tt/landa^{Yadi Reddy'S/oVenkat Reddy' aged 6! Years'Occ: Agriculture'} Hi;."'fi.tiJ.; ,i,^{vipiiiVirrrsu,tr,lirr"igitiiv4andal'Ransa Reddv District'}

¶11

...ResPondent^{No' 1/Com} Plainant

¶12

2 The State of Telangana,^{represented byP-ublicProsecutor' High Courtof} , j,li"t&:t|.ii", li uvaJroia i"iiri. strtJ6i retansana and^{the State of Andhra} Pradesh.

¶13

... Res Pon^{de nUResPonde nt}

¶14

Petition under^{Section482 ol cr.P.cpraying that in the circumstances} StatedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay bepleasedtoQuashtheC.C.No.l05oof2016onthefileofXXMetropolitan Magistrate,^{Malkajgiri, RangaReddy District'}

¶15

r.A. NO: 1^OF 19

¶16

Petition under^{section 482 of cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances} statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition'theHighCourtmay be pleased^{to stay of all further proceedings in C C No 1050 of 2016 on the file of} theXXMetropolitantvlagistrateCourt,atMalkajgiriincludingtheappearanceof the^petitioner.

¶17

l.A. NO:^{1oF 201 7CRLP MP. NO:7384 0F 2017}

¶18

Petition^{under Section482 of Cr'P C praying that in the circumstances} StatedinthelvlemorandumofGroundsofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be^{pleased to stay all further proceedingsin C C'No 1050 of 2016 on the file of} XX Metropolitan^{Magistrate, Malkaigiri'Ranga Reddy District'}

¶19

ThisPetitionComingonforhearing,uponperusingthetvlemorandumof Grounds^{of Criminal Petition and upon hearingthe arguments of Sri B'} DANANJAYA'^{Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of} the Respondent^{No 2 and of Sri lr/ PRAVEEN KUMAR' Advocate for the} Respondent^No.1

¶20

The Court^{madethe following: ORDER}

¶21

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7O84 of 2017

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is filcd under Section 482 of the Code of Criminai Procedure by the petitioner-accused No.2 to quash C.C.No.1O50 of 2O16 on the file 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

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

¶26

a) Respondent No.1 - de-facto complainant has hled a private complaint before the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Malkajgiri alleging that grandfather of de-focto complainant by name Manda Raghava Reddy was ttre protected tenant of lands in Sy.No.630 admeasuring Ac.l2.O6 guntas of Yapral viliage, 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 in the revenue records without any proceedings from tlie revenue department. The

¶27

¶28

de-.facto comltlainant started enquiring as to hou, the names of accuscd Nos.2 to 4 rvere entered in the revenuc record. On that an attempt was made against him. On the complaint ol 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.27B of 2000, which was numbered as C.C.No. 12913 /2OOO and the same was also disposed of in the year 20O5.

¶29

b) Aggrieved by the illegal entries in revenue records, thc de-facto complainant has initiated proceedings belore MRO, Keesara for succession of the tenancy, eviction and for delivery of possession. Accordingly, the MRO has issued proceedings No.B/785/2001, dated O4.O7.2OOl declaring succession in lavour of de-facto complainant in respect of lands in Sy.No.630 to an extent ofAc. 12.06 guntas.

¶30

c) A public notice in Telugu daily newspaper was published on 19.O3.2022 that V.Murali Krishna (accused No.1) and others have agreed to purchase the land belonging to the d"e-facto complainant from Dokuri Ravinder Reddy and others and called for objections, if any. The de-facto complainant has replied on 26.03.2002 through his counsel by enclosing copy of the

¶31

¶32

succcssion grantcd by MRO vidc Proceedings 8/785/2001, dated O4.O7 .2001 arrd 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 the de-facto complainant that the accused No.t has purchased the land from petitioneraccused No.2 and accused No.3 and other family members through registered AGP bearing No.509O/20O2 dated 25.09 .2022. In the said document also there is no mention about the MRO Proceedings of succession in favour of the de-facto complainant.

¶33

c) Tiire de-facto compla'inant has filed W.P.No.9262 of 2OO2 for implementation of orders passed by the MRO vide proceedings No.Bl7B5l2O01 and interim orders were passed in the said writ petition restraining alienation of the lands. At the time of liling of Writ Petition de-facto complainant has signed several blank papers. Surprisingly the de-facfo complainant came to know that t]le said Writ Petition was withdrawn. The de-facto complainant came know about the same, when he hled a suit in O.S.No.65 of 20O3 against accused Nos.l to 3 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal, wherein de-facto complainant has filed copy of an affidavit

¶34

¶35

allegedly filcd by him bcfore the High Court shou,irrg thar he has received Iis.5,00,O00/- lrom accused No.1, ol-lL of which Rs. 1,00,O00/- was through cheque and thereby the accused have withdrau,n the Writ petition No.9262 of 2OO2. Though the signature in the said affidavit belongs to d_e_facto complainant, the signature on the revenue stamp does not belong to him. Fraudulent documents were liled before the High Court and without consent and knowledg e of d.e-facto complainant, the writ petition was got dismissed.

¶36

d) In the document filed before the High Court, it 1S mentioned that grandfather of de-facto complainant AS grandfather of accused'Nos.2 to 4 In fact, grandfather ol accused Nos.2 and 3 is one Venkat Reddy but not Raghava Reddy. It is mentioned further t.l.at 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 tt,:e d.e-facto complaina:nt, the documents are created and Iiled before the High court and before the Junior Civil Judge Court at Medchal.

¶37

e) When the de-facto complainant has questioned his counsel, he gave evasive reply. The proceedings of MRO dated O4.07.2OO1 and review orders dated LO.04.2O22 were also

¶38

manipulated by the accused including MRO. T}:.e de-iacto complainant has applied for copy of the MRO orders <iated O4.O7 .2OOI under RTI and on receiving the .opy, vide File No.A/RTI/26O5 /2014 and 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, $/hich was not found in original order. The de-facto complainant has also sought for extract of the proceedings No.B 12807 12001 in respect of review of the order of MRO for which also another memo dated 7O.O7.2O15 was got issued stating that the said hle is not available. It is mentioned that MRO in collusion with accused have removed the original order and prepared the review order and handed over to accused Nos. 1 to 3.

¶39

0 If at all there was withdrawal before the High Court, the proceedings in C.C.No. 1661 of 2OO5 initiated by accused No.1 against tl:.e de-facto complainant and his family members would have been withdrawn and further criminal complaint in C.C.No. 1913/2000 initiated by the de-facto complainant before the Alwal Police Station against accused Nos.2 and 3 was very much in existence and after trial, the case was disposed of in the year 2005 and during the course of cross examination and

¶40

¶41

()

¶42

complaint on O5.04.2OO4 also there is no mention about the alieged compromise rvilh accused No. I or receipt of amount lrom the accuscd No. I .

¶43

g) Based on the said complaint given by de-focto complainant, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.790 of2O15 for thc offence under Sections 198, 468, 471,474,42O of the lndian Per-ral Code. During the course of investigation, the statemen t ctf de-facto complainant was recorded, received Photostat copies ol the MRO proceedings bearing No.B/785/2O01 dated 04.O7.2001 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 filed by ttre de-facto complainant, the MRO stated that he has issued proceedings B/7a5/2OO1, dated 07.O4.2OOI, however, he has denied the gignature 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/785/2001 dated 1O.O4.2022, which is in dispute and MRO has furnished copy of the same and he has also obtained copy of the orders of Ex.89 submitted by accused No.l in O.S.No.65 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,

¶44

Medchal, vtherein accused No.t^{hcrein has filcdforged} documents and acccrdingly^{the said suit wasclosed"}

¶45

h) The investigating officer has^{recordedthe statementof} other witnesses and filed charge^{sheetalleging that accused} Nos. I to 12 have committed the^{offences punishable under} Sections l2O-B, 406, 42O, 468 of^{the Indian Penai Code.} Aggrieved by the same, the^{petitioner-accused No.2 has filed the} present criminai petition to^quash the^{proceedings against him} in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on^{the file of learned XX Metropolitan} Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at^{Malkajgiri on the following} grounds:

¶46

I) The de-facto complainant has hled suit in^O.S-No.65of 2003 on the file ofJunior Civil Judge^{at Medchal, Ranga Reddy} District against the^petitioner and^{theirvendee, which was upon} contest was dismissed vide^{judgment and decree,dated} 23.O6.2OOa, wherein it was held that the^{respondenthas not} proved the case that he is the protected tenant.^Thus,having failed in his attempt in civil suit, the^{respondentNo. Ihas} abused the process of law by initiating^{the proceedingsunder} quash.

¶47

¶48

II) The de-facto complainant has suppressed the fact that entire property in Sy.No.630 is covered houses after obtaining the approved lay out from concerned authorities.

¶49

,Il) The MRo (LW4) himserf has filed a complaint against the de-facto complainant and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No.214 of 2OO2 before Kushaiduga police Station and the same is still pending.

¶50

IV) The de-facto comprainant has suppressed the fact that out of Ac. 12.06 guntas of the land in sy.No.63O of Kapra Village, Ac.4.O2 guntas belong to Mr.K.Joseph, who obtained HMDA layut and municipal layout in the year 1990 and sold out the open plots to third parties, who have consructed their respective independent houses in the said property. Since 27 years the prospective purchasers are residing in the said property without any interference.

¶51

V) Accused No. I has preferred criminal revision against tl_re de-facto complainant vide CRLRC No.233S of 2(/14, which is pending before the High Court

¶52

\4) Respondent No.l_de{actocomplainant has suppressed and misrepresented the fact that a civil proceeding is pending

¶53

¶54

beforetheJointCollector'Keesara,RangaReddyDistrictvide Fiie No.3526^{of 2015.}

¶55

VII) The^{d.e-facto complainanthas suppressed the fact that the} Hon'ble Judge^{has observedthat no such protectedtenant} extract was frled^{belbre the court, as such till date the de-facto} complainant^{has not filed the PT Extract in respect of Sy'No'630} of Kapra^{Village. It clearly showsthat tlre de-factocomplainant} has filed false^{complaint beforethe court only with an intention} to harass^{the petitionerand his famiiy members due to personal} rivalry and^{grudges with late D'Malla Reddyand D' Ramireddy} and D.Narsimha^ReddY'

¶56

4 Now the Point^{for determinationis:}

¶57

"Whether^{theproceedings againstthe} petitioner-accused^{No.2in C'C'No'1050 of 2016on} the file of^{learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate'} Ranga Reddy^{District at Malkajgiri,can be quashed} of the Code of^Criminal under Sectior,⁴⁸² Procedure?

¶58

Heard Sri B.Dananjaya,^{learnedcounsel forthe} No.2 and Sri^{M.PraveenKumar,learned} petitioner-accused counsel for ttre^{de-factocompiainantand Sri S'Ganesh'learned} Assistant Public^Prosecutor'

¶59

¶60

t l I

¶61

Learned counsel for the pctitioncr has sullmitted that the accused Nos.S to 12 in C.C.No.I0SO of 20 16 have filed a Criminal Petition No.62 14 of 2019 seeking quash of the proceedings against them b1, making the de-facto complainant as respondent No.3 and having considered the same, this Court has quashed the case against them. It is further submitted that basing on the finding in the said order, the petitioner-accused No.2 is also required to be givcn benellt and thus, case against him is sought to be quashed. It is to be noted that the originally the de-facto complainant has filed a private complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 4. Accused No.1 is the purchaser and petitioner-accused No.2 Lnd accused No.3 are the vendors, who have sold the property to accused No.l through AGp, whereas accused No.4 is the MRO, who has given a statement that his signature is forged in some of the .proceedings. perhaps considering the statement of MRO that he has issued original proceedings in B/7a5/2O01 and denied his signature in subsequent review orders and other proceedings, the said MRO is shown 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. 1 to 3 but accused Nos.S to 12 are also involved in this case and thus,

¶62

¶63

ttrey^{were also made as accused to the case' Hence' in the} original complaint,^{therc was no allegation about the role of} accused Nos.S^{to 12 and thereby theyhave takenadvantage of} the same and^{hled CriminalPetition No'6214 of 2Ol9 and thus'} the case against^{themwas quashed'}

¶64

In any case,^{the factsseeking quashment of the case} against the^{petitionerand seeking quashmentof the case} against accused^{Nos.s to 12 are totally different' Therefore'} merely because,^{case againstaccused Nos'S to 12 is quashed'} that cannot^{be a ground to quashcase againstthe petitioner-} accused No.2

¶65

As seen from^{the record, seriousallegationsare made} against the^{petitioner by the d'e-facto complainantfrom tJle} inception of^{proceedingsNo'B/785/20O1'Accordingto the} de-facto^{complainant,originallythe land to an extent of} Ac.12.06^{guntasin Sy'No'630of Alwal Village belongs to his} grandfather by^{nameRaghava Reddy,who was registeredas} protected tenant,^{from whom, the de-factocomplainanthas} succeeded^{the said property.However,petitioner-accused No'2} and accused^{No.3 got their names included in respect of the} said^{property suddenly in the revenue records' on which' an}

¶66

¶67

objection^q'irs filed by ttLe de-facto complainant before the MRO and thereby the MRO (LW4) has issued proccedings No.B/785/2001 stating that de-facto complainant is the successor of Raghava Reddy, who was protected tenant and issued succession of the tenancy vide proccedings No.B/785/2001. It is also mentioned in the said proccedings that accused Nos.2 and 3 are not grandchildren of Raghava Reddy as thcir grandfather is one Venkat Reddy. It is also the case of de-facto complainant that he has filed W.p.No.9262 of 2OO2 for a dtrection to implement orders passed by the MRO in Proceedings No.B1785l2O0l and also filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003 against accused,Nos.1 to 3 on the hle of learned Junior Civil Judge, Medchal arrd in both the proceedings, the basic document is proceedings No.B/785/2OO1 issued by the MRO. According to de-facto complainant, in order to get over the MRO proceedings, the accused have colluded with MRO and created a false proceedings as if the proceedings of MRO were reviewed by him arrd issued other proceedings No.B /2gOZ /2O01 contrary to the earlier proceedings No.B/785/2001. Based on the said review proceedings, the accused managed to get the suit as well as writ petition dismissed.

¶68

¶69

¶70

g. It is alleged by tine de-facto^{complainantthat the accused} No.l and petitioner-accused No.2^{and accusedNo.3 colluded} r.vith MRO and createC t-rumbcr^{of forgcd documents in order to} cause loss and get the^property of^{the de-faclo complainant.} Aggrieved by the review^{orders,tine de'facto complainanthas} taken up the proceedings^{underTenancy Act and itis stated} that the tenancy appeal^{was also dismissedand Writ Petitionis} hled before the High Court and the^{same is pending.}

¶71

It is the contention of the^{petitioner-accusedNo.2 and} accused No.3 have sold the^{propertyto accusedNo'l and they} are nothing to do ',t ith^{whateverproceedingsfiled by the} de-facto complainant a.rd the complaint^{frled by the de-focto} complainant before the Police is belated one.^{It is to be noted} tlrat the de-focto complainant^{has specifically mentionedthat} when the accused No.1 has issued^{notification statingthat he is} intending to^purchase the^{land in Sy.No.630belongingto the} de-facto complainant alleging that the^{said belongsto petitioner-} accused No.2 and accused^No.3 and^{another, t!;e de-facto} complainant has issued reply that the^{land belongsto him and} enclose the proceedings of the^{MRO vide No.Bl785/2O01and} after receiving the said proceedings, accused No.1 in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3 won over MRO (LW4) and cryted

¶72

¶73

false and lorged documents in the forum of revision. Basing on the said revisior-r got the landed properly. Theretore, there are clear allegations against the petitioner. According to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner is one of the accused, who is responsible for alleged forgery of the documents of MRO proceedings. Therefore, when there are such serious allegations against the petitioner, the petitioner cannot say that he is tnnocent

¶74

In fact, the statement of the MR() as LW4 is very clear that signature of original proceedings in B/7aS/2OO1 belonging to him but he has not signed in other proceedings subsequently and all the documents are created. Therefore, when MRO, whose statement was recorded that he is not responsible and that he has not issued any proceedings including review orders and the Police having investigated the same, found that accused Nos.1 to 3 and others are responsible for the same and when there is clear prima-facie material before the Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to say that he is innocent.

¶75

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a celebrated judgment decided betu.een State of Haryana and others vs. Ch. Bhajan

¶76

¶77

Lal and othersr, has formulateci certain guidelines under which Court can consider quashment of criminal case. The guidelines arc:

¶78

"(a) where the aliegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do r-ot prima /acie constitule any offence or make out a case against the accused;

¶79

(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officcrs under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Secrion 15S(2) of the Code;

¶80

(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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;

¶81

(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

¶82

(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

¶83

(0 where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings

| 1992 AIR 604

I t

ancl/ or where there^{is a specific provision in the Code} or the concerned Act,^{providing efficacious redress lor} the grievance ol^{the aggrieved party;}

¶88

(g) rvhere a criminal^{proceedingismanifestly} aitended^{.rith mala} fide^{andf or wherethe procecding} is rnaliciously instituted^{rvith an ulterior motive for} rvreaking vengeance^{on the accusedand with a vieu'} to spite him due^{to private and personal grudge'"}

¶89

In vierv ol the^{principle laid downabove said authority} and in vierv^{of the facts and circumstances, since thereis prima-} facie^{material againstthe petitioner-accused No'2and as there} are many factual^{issuesto be tried by the trial Court alter full-} fledged trizrl, this^{Courtis of the opinion that there are no merits} in this case^{to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioner in} C.C.No.1O5O of^{2016 on the fi1e of learned XX Metropolitan} Magistrate, Ranga^{ReddY District}

¶90

Accordingly^{the criminal petition is dismissed' However,} the trial Court^{shallproceed with C.C'No' 105O of 2O16 on the} Iile of learned XX^{MetropolitanMagistrate,Ranga ReddyDistrict} on merits of the^{case uninfluencedby the observationsand} comments made^{by this Court in this order'}

¶91

As a sequel,^{the miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any'}

¶92

¶93

shall stand closed. SDI K.ONESIM DEPUTY^REG-ISTRAR \ //TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶94

To, 1. The Xx Metropotitan^{Magistrate' Cyberabad' at Malkajgiri'} 2.3. Two The Station CCs^{to the Public House Officer, p'o"""-utJt]iigh r("l"-rj'O#"rice Court for Station' Cyberabad the State of Telangana' atDistrict} Hvderabad [OUT'l

¶95

4 l;l'"" #i;5-ni^{rj onr'rnNLnYA'Advocate [oPUc]} - ^- 5 E,nIiE iI^{Srii nr-"nnvEENKUMAR' Advocate[oPUCl} 6 Two^{CD CoPies} 7 One Spare^CoPY Mt\4K \

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910912022

ORDER

-4=-
o,c
,4|&*"
)+
lt ot1 ?$Tl
,/

¶102

CRLP.No.7084 of^2017,

¶103

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL^PETITION

¶104

\J Nr--

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, v. Sri Manda Yadi Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dokuri Ravinder Reddy, v. Sri Manda Yadi Reddy

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

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

Smt. Hussain Bee Vs The State of Telangana and another