Dismissed

Dasari Hanumanthu v. Smt. Patnam Ramulamma

Telangana HC7 Jun 2023CRLRC/212/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision case, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's dismissal of a private complaint alleging forgery of 1950s documents. The Court held the case was civil in nature, the complaint lacked merit, and though the trial court correctly dismissed it, it failed to follow due process under Cr.P.C. Sections 200-203.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed as it was devoid of merits.

Dasari Hanumanthu Vs Smt. Patnam Ramulamma — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32541

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No:212OF 2023

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Order dated: 06-02-2023 passed in C.F.R.No.'1213 ot 2022 on the flle of the Court of the I Additional Magistrate of First Class at Gadwal.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasari Hanumanthu, s/o late Dasari Kurmanna, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o Rathiburgu, Near Club, Gadwal Town, Jogulamba Gadwal District J

¶10

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Patnam Ramulamma, w/o Late Patnam Thimmappa, aged about 68 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.4-45 Yerravally Chowrastha, Kondair Post, Itilyal Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶13

Smt. Patnam Padmamma, Wo Late Patnam, Venkatramulu, aged about 66 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.1-3-7912, Sunkulamma Mettu, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶14

Patnam Venkatanarasaih, S/o Late Narsappa, aged aboutG€ years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H.No.4€3, Devender Nagar Colony, Jogulamba Gadwal District.

¶15

Patnam Seshadri, S/o Late Narsappa aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Deputy Collector, R/o H.No.2-1 8-1 70, Pragati Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad

¶16

5 The State of Telangana, Rep by Public Prosecutor , High Court^{of Judicature} at Hyderabad through S.H.O. Gadwal Rural P.S. Jogulamba Gadwal^District

¶17

.. Respondents/Accused 1 to 4

¶18

lA NO:'l OF 2O2:

¶19

Petitirn ur,Jor Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying thitt rn :he circurnstances stated in the aff :izrvit filed in support of the petirion, t.rr, H gh Court may be pleased to direct lh3 frfth respondent to register Fl[1 again:,t Respondents 1 to 4 on the complain rf the petitroner, pending disposal 31 thl above Crimrnal Revision Case.

¶20

Counsel for the F etitioner: SRl. SRILEKHA PUJARI

¶21

Counsel for the F espondents No. 1 to 4: SRI J. PRABHAI(r:iR l;enior Counsel representing M/s hA \Ul/lURl KALYANI

¶22

Counsel for the R lspondent No.5: SRI S. GANESH, ASSII}TANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOFI

¶23

The Court made tl re following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2l2 of 2o23

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This revision case is hled against the orders in C.F.R.No.1213 of 2022 dated 06.02.2023 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gadwal.

¶27

The facts of the case are that one Dasari Pedhanna was the absolute owner and pattadar of the land in Sy.No.98 to an extent of Ac.9-37 gts., situated at Venkampet ViIIage of Jogulamba Gadwal District. The rev1sl0n petitioner^'herein and Dasari Goverdhanamma, Ramudu, Kurmanna, Dasari Shekar and their family members a-re the predecessors-in-interest of Dasari Pedhanna. The respondents L to 4 filed a suit for permanent injunction vide O.S.No.32 of 2021 , before the Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Gadwal along with an interlocutory application in I.A.No.52 of 2023 for temporary injunction against the petitioner and his family members. The said I.A. was dismissed on 03.O3.2022. Tlle defendants have filed I.A.No.1 12 of 2O2l seeking

¶28

)

¶29

G,1(" J t 1. ll.t).^{\o. ) I ) of2023}

¶30

apllorltnr( nl of Aclvocate-Commission<'r fot dernarcating thc bounc a.'ies and noting down the [rh\sir:a fe atures of plainr sr:h.'clule prol)erl.v, which was allowed lrr orCer clated 20.01 .2Or). l. Aggrieved of the same, C.li.P.Nr. )70 of^'2023 was filerl :,r(]king to set aside the said crder a:]d the same was rrllorr', d by order dated 11.O4.2O23. Su rsequetrt to that, .rn :a ;plication has been filed to sllrvev tlrc land and thc sarmc v a; dismissed

¶31

t)n t, ).O2.2O21, a complaint was filec rga-inst the petitione.- [ elein including Dasari Goverclhane n mir, Dasari Srinivasrtlr- Dasari Ramulu, Dasari I( urrnitrrna Dasari Hanulnzrnt. ru and Dasari Shekar, for which the Police have registerccl i^,]ase vide FIR.No.12 of 2021 lbr tlte offer-rces punisl:able: under Sections 447, 427 ar d 5C4 r/n, 3.1 of IPC. On 2t'.(\4.2O2 1, a final report was filed b', the SHO, Gadu,al .RL rzLl in R.C.No.3 of 2027 statirLp that the petitioncr er^,:trg with above said persons are itr pos;session of the lar-rri rr) an extent of Ac.3-36 gts. in Sy.Nr,.,tB r;ituated at Venl<arrng,:ta Village, Gadlr,al Rural, Jc,gul:unlra Gadq.al District ancl thar the case is civil in nature

¶32

¶33

CAC, J Crl.R.C.No-212 of 2023

¶34

¶35

On 03.06.202 1, the petitioner along with above said persons filed I.A.No.2S of 2O2l in O.S.No.32 of 2O2l before the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal for rejection of plaint and on 07.06.2021, a counter affidavit was filed by respondents 1 to 4 in the said I.A. bringing to the notice of the Court about the document dated 14.01.1956, letter RC.No.6O72lA6/54, dated 14.O1.1956 and Receipt Nos. 103 and 1O4 containing rubber stamps of Government of Hyderabad of tJle year 1959-1960. On 28.06.2021, the petitioner filed an application before the Sub-Collector's ofhce, Gadwal requesting him to furnish the extracts of RC.No.6O72lA6/54 dated 31.01.1956. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner received an endorsement from the said office on 07.O7.2021 informing that RC.No.6O72/A6 154 dated 31.01.1956 was not traced out. On 28.03.2022, the petitioner has hled a complaint before the SHO, Gadwal Rural contending that fake old non-judicial stamp papers and fake stamps of Government officials in respect of Ac.9- 18 gts in Sy.No.98 were produced by the respondents and a copy was also sent to Deputy Superintendent of

¶36

¶37

G,,IC, J ( l. R.('. \0) I ) of 202.1

¶38

Policr',⁽ ]: ,l'i'al and Superintendent of Poli< c J tgulzrmba Gadu al [, istnct and Sri Mahender Redd-v-, )GP for the State of^'l', litngana a.sking them to take actior a6,:rinst the resoo n d r:tt s

¶39

On :l ) 0!i.2022, petitioner has alsc sent i; mail to the Addition,rl Oommissioner of Police (Crimr:r; & SIT) by makin g r c1 rcsr:ntation in respect of samo docrrr rerrts in the complain t rllsen to Deputl' Superintenclent rl P<,licc arnd SPII I'<rli::e On 31.O3.2022, the petitioner ]:ras filed an appeal bcf ,r: the District Collector, Jtgulanrba Gacln al District r-e; ,arding s:Lle certificate of 1!)56 is:,uel under Tenanr.:v r;:t. Thc complaint also c isclo;cs that on 22.O4.2O'.1.?, thr: petitioner and his famil',, metn ters filed a compl:rillr, I e bre the SHO, Gadwal RuraI cor:tr.nding t.hat thev u,r:rc tl rr:atened by the respondents rndr:^- the guise of civil sr-Lit ar C fake olcl non-judicial stamp paF cls of 1947 On 25 04 2" ;22, the petitioner fiied a conlplailrt before the DGP f,rr tl e State of Telangana and Circ t: IrLspector concerrred . b r- taking action. On 30 .O!i.2O22 a private compla ilrt tr .lr; preferrecl before the Judit:iai I\lzrgistratc of

¶40

¶41

¶42

GAC, J Crl.R.C-No.2l2 of2023

¶43

¶44

First Class, Jogulamba^Gadwa-l District^and the^said Magistrate passed order vide C.F.R.No.l2l3 of 2022^dated 06.02.2023, holding thatordering the Police to conduct investigation into the aspect of forgery at that stage would frustrate the proceedings of the civil case. It was further observed that the plea of forgery can be taken before the Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the^present Criminal Revision Case is hled.

¶45

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record.

¶46

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have created fake nonjudicial stamp papers of 1947 dated 14.01.1956 and letter RC.No.6072l A6154 dated 14.01.1956 and Receipt Nos.103 and 104 containing the rubber starnps of Government of Hyderabad of the year 1959-60 and cheated him under^the guise of said documents and therefore, a private complaint is maintainable.

¶47

7 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the entire case is civil in

¶48

¶49

G/1C, J ( 1.R.t . \i.l l2 0f2021

¶50

¶51

natr.rrc ,ar-rl a civil suit is pending. If at all the re is any necessitl ft;r the petitioner, he has tr lile r-rtr:rlocutory applir:at.or r n the present suit for referring th.' d,rcuments to colrc€r-r erl departmcnts to find out .he g:r.uineness of those d,rr: rrnents, ernd therefore, he :ontenrls thzrt the preseirt ,:.'irninal revision case is 1ot- rrrairtainable. Accorrl ing I the trial Court has rightll' dis;mir;sed the privat(' cor r[]laint and there is no ground to irLterlere rn,ith the sarne

¶52

On pr rrrsal of the record, it is evident tha: a civil suit pen dirr;i l-,etrveen the petitioner and the r 3sF,ondents since 120'.2 Admitteclly, the responder ts hilve iiled I.A bcfore tht: f iirl Court on 07.06.2021 bringing to the notice of the Cor rt about the documents ccntifi:1 ng rubber stanrps ol^(- rvernment of Hl,derabad, u,hich w,:r: isrsuecl in the^yerrr 1(⁾⁵⁹ 60 and non-.judicial sta:np pzrpers dated 14.01. 1956. Inspitc of entertaining ttLe sai<l LA., the prescnt cor rplaint l-ras been filed by the p:r itioner on 28.O3.2.022. lt is the contention of the petitioncr that alter rt:ceiving tht e ndorsentent from the Admi;ristre 1. vc Officer,

¶53

¶54

¶55

GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.2l2 012023

¶56

Gadwal that RC.No.6O72lA6l54^{dated 14'01'1956was not} traced out in their^{office, there was lapse of 9 monthsin} preferring the complaint^{and the private complaint was} also silent as to^{why he has not made the complaint for 9} months. Furthermore,^{even if RC.No.6072lA6l54dated} 14.01.1956 is traced^{out in the office, its genuineness} cannot be decided^{by the Courtat that particular point of} time. If at a1l, the^{partieshave any grievanceagainstthe} said documents,^{they can file an interlocutory application} in the Civil Court^{seeking to refer the documents to the} experts for verification^{as to the genuineness of those} documents. Thus,^{there is a remedy available to the} petitioner to file an^{application before the Civil Court'} Inspite of filing an^{application, the present private} complaint has^{beenfiled by the petitioner for the offences} punishable under Sections^{120-8, 42O,467,46aatd 474} rlw.34 of IPC.^{The ingredientsof 120-8 of IPC are not at} all attracted^{as they cannot prove the conspiracybetween} the parties^as the^{documents are relating to the year 1956} and even the respondents^{are not even born/minorsby} that time. Therefore,^{the trial Court has erred in disposing}

¶57

¶58

G,!C, J t 4.R.r.,\o.)I2 o1 202.1

¶59

of thr: pet tiln, insleacl ol dismissing it as th: irLgrcdients for tl'rc ;'1;r,v: said offer-rces under IPC ar,,. not all a,tracted.

¶60

Sect ,)lr 200 of Cr.P.C. deals with privia:€ complaints It cni,isalt rs that a Magistrate taking cogrri,;ance of an offencc^(, 1 complaint shall examine uP )l oath the compl:rin;L tt and the witnesses present, if eLlrv, and the substi)n(;c ,rt such examination shall be redu:r,d to rvriting and shall I e signed by the complainant 1nd tho u itnesses, and also [r ,. Lhe Magistrate. The object of e;:a minatron of complrrint il -'d under Section 200 Cr.P.C is ro itscertain rn hcthr,'r th :r'e is an-v prima facie case e gail-nl thr: person accuse d o I t^-re offence in lhe complairLt an j to prevent abuse of p^'o tess on a comltlaint vvhich is t:it I er false or vexa tlo rt s a, r'-rtended onl1, to harass sr-rcL a per:ion If on a reacling c,l' tJ'e complaint, the Magistrare llr ris that the allegations trerein disclose a cognizable offe tr e irnd the forwarclir-rg ;f the complaint to the Police for n vestigation ttuder Sect:,,n i56(3) will be conducive tc just cr: ard save 1n the valuabk tirne of tl-re Magistrate from bclng r.r,a sted enqtLiring irr o a matter rnrhich was primarily tfrc :[rrty of the

¶61

;*-, ;r,^ii:

¶62

¶63

GAC, J Ctl.R.C-No.2l2 o12023

¶64

Police to investigate, he will be^justihed in adopting that course as an alternative to taking cognizance of the offence.

¶65

Under Section 201 of Cr.P.C., if the complaint IS made to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of the offence, he shall return it for presentation before the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect or direct the complainant to the^proper Court

¶66

1 1. Section 2O2 of Cr.P.C. envisages postponement of issue of process. Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192 may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of^process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself^or direct an investigation to be made by a Police^officer or^by such other person he thinks fit for the^{purpose of deciding} whether or not there is sufficient ground for^proceeding. Section 2O2 is to empower such^person to^{exercise powers} of an in-charge of a police station other than the^power of arrest, if it is referred under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. After receiving the report from the Police, the Magistrate czln

¶67

¶68

G..t(. J {'; .R.( ,\it.2t) ol 2023

¶69

disagrcc u t r the rcport of the Policc olficcr <:r .rny other pet'son t()^,,'rom the rnatter had beer-r lnLrusled by such Magistratt: lc r rnvestigation.

¶70

Scct ,n 2O3 of Cr.P.C deals r,,ith d srr.issal of complainl, [], after considering the statcments, orr oath of the cornp,la nant and of the \'itnesses and the lesrrlt of the inquir.. or n restigation under Section 2r)2. rlrc Magistrate is ol t he⁽ p.niol1 tl-rat there is no suft icierl: gr( und for proceeclir g. l.re shall dismiss the compl ein t rr d in evcry such c:rst:. 1c shall record the reasons for doins, so.

¶71

In t,r,: J:resent case, the Magistrate hzrs n, rt zrssigned anv va rd r-( illior'rs for issuing summons t nder !iection 2O4 of Cr.l).C. b-rt simply assigned that 'CIrR retition is disposc d oI i Lc<:ordingl],' u'hich ought not lc tave bcen doner. l]ut. he trial Court has come to a corrr:lur;iorr that a civil crrse pending before the I Additiorr:rl .ludicial Magistr-aLte ,:1' liirst Class in rcspect of the prop()r,1 ln ISSl-le and in orlr:' to permit for rnvestigation in 1-1rr: matter it u'ould rcqr-rir ,: perusal of the original documernts u,hich are alreadv plitc, d before the Court. Therefor(., i t \ o,l [d not be

¶72

¶73

GAC, J Ctl.R-C.No-212 of 2023

¶74

proper to direct the Police to conduct investigation. Admittedly, original documents are before the Court. Petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an interlocutory application for testing genuineness of the documents before the experts. Moreover, the contents of the complaint also do not attract the ingredients for the offences punishable under Sections 1208, 42O, 467, 468 and 474 r/w 34 of IPC. Furthermore, the complaint is very much silent as to the accused/respondents forging^the documents, which pertain to the year, 1956.^Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error or irregularity as to the findings of the Court below, however, it has not followed the due process of law under Sections 2OO to 203 of Cr.P.C.

¶75

With the above observations, this Criminal Revision

¶76

Case is dismissed, as it is devoid of merits

¶77

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,^shall

¶78

stand closed.

¶79

Sd/. B. SAWAVATHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// qp/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶80

To,

¶81

The I Additional^{Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gadwal'}

¶82

2 The Station^{House Officer, Gadwal Rural PoliceStation'Jogulamba Gadwal} District

¶83

c Two CCs^{to the PublicProsecutor'High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad.(OUT)

¶84

4 One CC to^{SRI SRILEKHAPUJARI' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶85

One CC tc, S:tl KANUMURI KALYANI, Advocale [OP -J(.)] 6 Two CD Cop e:; kam 7 c-/

I I

I ,

HIGH COUF T

DATED: 0Vltlfl2023

ORDER

":1'
rr t'I SIAT
,.,/ .'
4
t
/: vZ
r JIJI 'Nn c)
-t,
\ L
//
.-'J ., //
).: - a/

¶92

CRLRC.N o.i 12 of 2023

¶93

DISMISSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION C ASE

¶94

g?
"\ ?

Dasari Hanumanthu v. Smt. Patnam Ramulamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Hanumanthu v. Smt. Patnam Ramulamma

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

Joga Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

T.Hari Prasad Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Telangana and Another

K. Gopala Krishnan Vs The State of Telangana And Another

Muduganti Srinivas Reddy Vs Kotha Venkata Rao and Another

A.Nagarjuna Vs StateState of Telangana

Pokala Shivudu , Shiva Vs The State of Telangana