Allowed

Karike Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Mar 2023CRLP/669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of cheating and forgery. The court held that the investigation focused solely on proving the document's falsity without establishing the petitioners' involvement or benefit, rendering the trial futile and unsupported by evidence connecting them to the crimes.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 1332 of 2014 are hereby quashed.

Karike Srisailam Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDTJREAEITTE^{OF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUEJPIY.] THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THRii'"''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 669 0 F 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Karike Srisailam S/o Lat€ S!:fl.."LgS"'n.-,,ffi^{'?i3-,[.#i,::,"n0"Xfl?1fi :0","1b",I|,S,.{li$rSii:}

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1

¶11

+e"tJ:ii"t^{*langana,Representedby the pubric prosecuror} High court of

¶12

2 ..fl fi,I:R:'fi B"'[]5.o;!?ryl?'.il:I,a'jri%:131"$J,0"[:?:d#ccHouse

¶13

...RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Seclion.4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Ground. "i c"rr,ii"li ietirion, the nign court may be pleased to quash tne o1og99o-irys in CC N;. i33; of 2Ol4pending on rhe fite of the Hon'bte Xt Addirionat Ch,ei M;r.;il;; d;,".1*,e, at Secunderabad

¶15

1.A. NO: 1O F 2023

¶16

petition under Section -4g2 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorand'm or crounoJli c",,#ilJi'peririon, the High cor.t ,"y be preased ro stav a'fur*rer.proceei,,t; ;i;;ffi dispensing wirh rhe presence of the^petitioner in CC No. 13.s2 oiirl;';ilffi Additionat Chief Metropotitan Magistral., on rhe fite of rhe Hon,bte Xt "t^{!"i]r"X"ra oro}

¶17

This^petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri S. NAGESH REDDY, Advocate for the petitioner and the^"proii. pro.".utor on beharf of the Respondent No. 1 and of none appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THD I{ON()[.RABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K'SUREN])]}R}

¶21

CRIlllI-NAL^{PETITIoN No'669OF 292-3-}

¶22

o RDE^R:

¶23

ftled under^{Sectir)n'l 82 of thc} This^{Cl-irr-rirl al Petittonts} 1973^{(for short 'Cr't'r)') by thc} Code^{of Critnina'I)rocedure'} petitiorle^{r/ A I to r rtash the proceedingsin C'C No l? '\2 f2014} lvLil 3is^{rate aL} \dditional^{ChiefMetroPolitan} on thc^{lilc of X} against^'.h€' 1,t:titioncr-/Aⁱ Secunrlerirb:rd^{''- ht: offence s alleged} 420, 468,^{47 I'} 466 rlw³⁴ ol tl-rc^{Irrclia tt} are utrdet^{SlccLi nr;} Pcnal^Codc:

¶24

I{earcl^{lear nr:d counsei for the petitionerzttlcl lea'ri-rcd} Pc rut^srlcl F'rosecutor^{for the respondent- Sil2tte} Additional^F'trbli the rccorrl

¶25

This llou|^{b1' order dt'o2'11'2022 incrl't'No2303 oi} 2O19^{quasLre d tlLe proceedings against Accused No:; ! tr' 7 in tirc} samc^{CC. 'lhis ;c titronerrvho is arrayed as Acctrse'dl"io- Ialso} stands^{otrt Ire si rrre footing as that of A3 to A7}

¶26

lu viet' 'r[^{lt'e order dt'O2 l l'2023 passr:din C -1 F' No 2303} ol 20 l9^{arrd lbr t tle reasonsalike' this Crimjnal[r(]r.itiorlis also} aliou'ed^{:r trlt ncproceedingsagainst thtilt'l it orler'/ A Iin}

¶27

¶28

C.C.No.1332 of 2Ot4 on the file of XI Additional Chief

¶29

Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, are hereby quashed.

¶30

5 order dt.o2' rr.2023 passed in crr.p.No.2303 of 2or9 shalr form part of this record. Office ls to append a copy of the

¶31

aforesaid order to this order.

¶32

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

Sd/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶34

To,

¶35

SECTIO FFICER

¶36

1 The Xl Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad

¶37

2 The Station House Officer, Mahankali police Station, Hyderabad

¶38

3 Two ccs to the Public Prosecutor, High cou( for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶39

4 One CC to SRl. S. NAGESH REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶40

5 Two CD Copies

¶41

(Along with Orderdated 02.11.2023 in CRt.p.No.2303/i9)

HIGH COIJRT

DATED: 1410.:l?-023

2/,2-
.st,
/, -:
sr
lr'
r.
F
i.r
'. ?r ,-,.'i i-

¶48

ORDER

¶49

CRLP.No.669 rl=2023

¶50

ALLOWING TI.E CRIMINAL PETITION @14 &r" .) dA

¶51

¶52

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶53

c I MINALP ETITI ON No. 2303 0F 2019

¶54

o RD ER

¶55

This Criminar petition is fired under section 482 0f the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short .Cr.p.C.,) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners who are arrayed as Accused Nos.3 to 7 in C.C.No.1332 of 2014 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, Hyderabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420,468,411, 466 read with 34 of Indian^penal Code (for short'IpC,).

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 7 and the learned Additional public prosecutor for the respondent_ State and perused the record.

¶57

The Station House Officer, Mahankali police Station filed charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences as stated above.

¶58

The case of the prosecution in brief is that a fabricated order of the Supreme Court dated 21.03.2005 was received by LWt/de facto complainant through post which was an interim stay granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp (Civil) No. 6892 of 2005.

¶59

¶60

On receip: of the^{said order, the de factctcofnt)llinantgrew} suspicious^{and (: lused enquiry and she cameto knowt lat the said} order was^{a fabr c;rted one and no such orders\rJere [,r(jnouncedby} the Hon'ble^{Supt :nle Court on that day as it was a holidav'}

¶61

6'AcornplairitwaslodgedwiththeMahankaliPolir:i:S.:ationon 2g.0g.2007 and re^{statementof de facto complainan'./Lv/1 uncer} Section 161 of^{lr.P.C. was recorded on 28'08 2014 In the said} complaint, the^{le factocomplainanthas narrated tl-itt there are} owner tenant dil^{ptrtesand the Court has passed orders'lirerctingthe} eviction of tenar ts.^{However, in the month of April, l(105, de facto} complainant^{i-et,:i,,ed an order of the Hon'ble Supren<: Colrt dated} 21.03.2005 urhi:r^{was in favourof father of petitioners and others'} Accordingly', slr(r^{erlgaged the services of the Supreme(-':'urt lawyer to} defeno her cas,:^{ill SLP l'1o.6892 of 2005 and her co'lrlse! enquired} about the order^{rnd informed the complainant that the s;;rid rlrderwas} fabricated,3nd^{tlre samewas informedto the Hon'ble S,ttllretneCourt,} which was take-^{cogntzanceand orderedenquiry. Upo' enquiry, the} Registrar Generi^{I rtf supremecourt filed a report statrr<lthat the said} order WaS fabr^{:a..ed. on the basis of the said Stat3l.lent,Station} House offi,:er.^{I'alrankali PoliceStation filed the preserll-cherge sheet} against^{th€: petit orters and others'}

¶62

¶63

As seen from the investigation, the entire focus of the investigation was to determine the correctness or otherwise of the order. However, no steps were taken by the police to enquire (i) as to who were the persons who fabricated the said order; (ii) Where the order was fabricated or prepared; (iii) Who sent the said order; (iv) Pursuant to the said order what was the benefit that was accrued to these petitioners?

¶64

8 Sections 420,468,466 and 47L of lpCare extracted:

¶65

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of propefi.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonesfly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶66

Forgery for purpose of cheating._Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 3[document or electronic record forgedl shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

¶67

¶68

Forg.rli^{of record of Court or of publicregiste:r' etc'-} 3[Whoevr,-^{forges a documentor an electroni: record]'} purportinl tl be^{a recordor proceeding of or in ar Cotlrt of} lustice. c,^{e registerof birth, baptism, marriaget:'r burial'} or ar rell st3r^{kept by a public servantas slt:h' or a} certificatt:^{or documentpurporting to be made tll a public} servant i'^{iris official capacity,or an authorityto institute} ordefenr:asuit,ortotakeanyproceedingsthert''in'orto confess^{u(lgment, or a power of attorney' shallbe} ounrshec^{u.'ith imprisonmentof eitherdescripti':ln fora} ternr wh h^{may extend to seven years, and sla I alsobe} liable to f nt:'

¶69

1[Explanaltor.--For^{the purposes of this section' "reetister"} includes^{tny list, data or recordof any entries r aint.ained} in the t: e(rtronic^{form as defined in clause (rl of sub-} sect-ion⁽ )^{of section 2 oF the Information Techntilogy Act'} 2000 (2 o'2000) l

¶70

trsr rg as^{genulnea forged l[documentor} ']le(:tronlc rec,rrdl.'-VVhoever^{fraudulently or dishonestl)'uses as} gerruine arly l[document^{or electronicrecord] which he} kncrws c,^{l-as reason to believeto be a forged L[rlocument} or elec,^o ric^{recordl, shall be punished in :he same} manner ts^{if he had forgedsuch 1[docunrentot eler:tronic} recorcl].

¶71

¶72

To attract an offence of cheating under Section 420 of IpC, there has to be a false statement, pursuant to which a person believing such farse statement shourd have been induced to deriver property' There are no such instances which are narrated to attract an offence under Section 420 of IpC.

¶73

To attract an offence under Section 46g of IpC, it has to be shown that a person has fabricated a document and the said document is a false document as defined under Section 464 of IpC. In the absence of the Investigation Officer identifying as to who was the person/ who fabricated the said order, the offence under section 468 of IPC is not attracted.

¶74

For attracting an offence under Section 47L of lpC,it has to be proved that the fabricated order was used to defraud having knowledge about the falsity of the document. In the present case, the fabricated order of the Supreme Court was received by post and the de facto comprainant sent the said order to her counser in Derhi and her counsel found that the order was incorrect and thereafter proceedings were undertaken and ultimately a report was filed by the Registrar of supreme couft stating that it is false. The said document being fabricated is not in dispute. However, there is no evidence as

¶75

¶76

to how^{these p':ti:icners have used the said clocunt:lt1'o cheat} having^{knowled':e aboutits falsity. Admittedly, no're of these} petitioners have lrroduced^{the document before any autrt''rity' or even} LWI or^{claimed rny benefit on the basis of said order' He:nce' the} offence^{undei' Sir :ticn 471 of IPC is not attracted'}

¶77

L2. An^{offenct: under Section 466 of IPC is attractedr"rhen a Court} document^{5 fsr]ed. Admittedly, the order dated21 03'2005was} forged, however^{tf e investigation does not reveal as to 'r/hc'was the} person that forrl^{:d the document For the said reasorl' nolle of the} ingredients^{of St,} -t^{on 466 of IPC are attracted'}

¶78

The^{polic,.rave not investigated the case in pr:1-rerdirection.} The entire^{ener.y was used only for the purpose of e:;tt'rblis;hingthat} the order^{vrhich,ry;tsreceived in post by the de facto cotrplainantwas} no steps^{were taken by the Polir:e to identify} a forged^{one, l,} ^n'ever from where^{the lrler hasoriginated, whereit was forgo:l or whowas} the^{personiryhrlhad sent the saicj order' In the abs:rce of any of} these aspe:cts^{tr:irrg investigatedand broughtbefore'ltr: Trial Court'} the Trial Courl^{c,lnnot proceed on the basis of an 'assumptionof} LVnLI de^{t.acto :cmplainantthat the document mrl:;t havebeen} fabricated^{by ttr:se petltionersas they would be llenefittr:d'}

¶79

¶80

L4. Though the learned Additional Public^prosecutor submits that the petitioners would be beneficiaries and they are the only persons who would have an advantage, for which reason they have to be prosecuted. With due respect to the Public prosecutor the Accused can be prosecuted if a prima facie case is made out and convicted by a Criminal Court in the event of case being proven beyond reasonable doubt satisfying the ingredients of the penal provisions and not on the basis of assumption.

¶81

It is ironical that though the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was fabricated, the police have totally failed to establish that these petitioners are complicit in any manner in the fabrication of the said record. The police have proceeded in wrong direction and wasted their energies for seven years in examining the witnesses only to prove that the document is fabricated and absolutely no evidence is collected to connect these petitioners with the said fabrication. The trial on the basis of evidence available is a futile attempt and waste of time of the Criminal Court. For the said reasons, the prosecution against these petitioners cannot be sustained.

¶82

¶83

Acccrrdinq y. the Criminal Petition is allorvr:d^{and the} proceedings er ;ainst the petitioners/Accused No;,.i [o 7ⁱⁿ C.C.No.13:12 ol 2t)14 on the file of XI Additional^{Chi:fMe:tropolitan}

¶84

Magistrate at S,:ctnderabad, Hyderabad are hereby^qua-';hecl.

¶85

Mlscellanr ous Petitlons,^pending if any, shall startrl^closed.

¶86

K,SIJRENDER, J

¶87

Date: C2. 11.20,u 2

Karike Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karike Srisailam v. The State of Telangana

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/s. B. R. Traders Vs State of Telangana and another

Chenna Vidyasagar Vs State of Telangana and 7 Others

V.Prabhakar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Chikkala Apoorva , Sankuri Apoorva Vs State of Telangana and another

Mr. Vegesna Chaitanya Kumar , Vegeshna Chaitanya Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Mogli Jagdish Kumar Vs Sri. G. Madhusudhan Reddy