Allowed

P.Ramdev S/o P.Deenvan Rao, v. The State of Telanangana, Rep. by its

Telangana HC10 Oct 2023WP/12428/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed FIR against petitioners bona fide purchasers in a property dispute, holding the complaint barred by limitation and its initiation in criminal proceedings an abuse of process as it pertained to an ongoing civil title dispute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; proceedings in FIR No. 686 of 2014/FIR No. 304 of 2014 against petitioners (accused Nos. 2, 19, 20) quashed.

P.Ramdev S/o P.Deenvan Rao, Vs The State of Telanangana… — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 12428 OF 201s

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.Ramdev, S/o: P.Deenvan Rao, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o Plot No.332A, MLAs Colony Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-34.

¶10

P.Jyothi, Wo: Sri. P.Ramdev, Aged about 38 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o Plot No.332A, tt/LAs Colony Road No.12, Banlara Hills, Hyderabad-34

¶11

P.Sameer Kumar, S/o: P. Deenavan Rao, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, Flat No.202, Maitri Residency, Aurora Colony Road No.2 and 3, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telanangana, Rep. by its, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Station House Officer, CCS Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶17

V.Sridhar, S/o: Late V.Govardhan, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Yapral Village, Malkajigiri Mandal, Hyderabad District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly on in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records relating to the registration of the FIR No.304 of 2014 on the file of CCS Police Station Hyderabad (Earlier F.l.R No.6B6 of 2014 on the file of Saifabad Police Station, Hyderabad) against the petitioners and quash the same for being illegal, uncbnstitutional and violative of the Criminal Procedure Code further as an abuse of process of law.

¶20

¶21

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2O1s(WPMP. NO:16 363 0F 2015)

¶22

Petition under section^'151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in wpport of the petition, the Hign court may oe pleaseJ stLJatt further proceedings including of stay of arrest oithe petitioners in furtherance of the registration of FIR No. 304 ot 2014 on the file of the ccS police station Hyderabad (Eelier FIR No. 686 of 2014 on the file of police station saifabao, Hyderabad) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon,bre court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.

¶23

l.A. NO: 1 0F 201s(WVMP. NO: 4498 OF 2015

¶24

Between:

¶25

V.Sridhar, S/o: Late V.Govardhan, Aged about 32 years, Occ: private Employee, Rt/o Yapral Village, lMalkalgiri Mandal, llfvOeraUaA Distr[i.

¶26

...PETITIONEFYRESPONDENT NO.4

¶27

AND

¶28

P.Ramdev, S/o: P.Deenval R1o,4ggd about 46 years. Occ: Business, Rl/o Plot No.3324, MLAs corony Road^"No.12, Banjara Friris, r-rvoeiaoa;-#"''

¶29

P.Jyothi, W/o: Sri. P. Ramdev, Aged about 38 years, Occ: House Wife, Rl/o^ptot No.3324, IVLAs Cotony Rdad No.12, Banjira Hiils, Hy;e;a-b;l:34"'"'

¶30

P Sameer Kumar, S/o: p. Deenavan Rao, Aqed about 4g vears oc_c: Business, Flat No.202, Irrraitri Residency, nLiroratotony noro r',.ro.'ilni 3, Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶31

...RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3/PETITIONER

¶32

The State of Telanangana, Rep. by its, principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabid.

¶33

The Director General of^police, Telangana State, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶34

The Station House Officei, CCS police Station, Hyderabad.

¶35

...RESPONDENT NO.4 TO 6/RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3

¶36

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased vacate the interim stay granted in wp No. 12428 ot 2015 dated 27.04.20'1s and thereby dismiss the said petition.

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI N. NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI V. RAMCHANDER GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER

¶38

¶39

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE E.V.VENUGOPAL

¶40

WRIT PETITION N o.L2428 0F 2015

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

1 This writ petition, under Artlcle 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.6B6 of 2014 on the file of P.S. Saifabad (transferred to CCS Police Station, Hyderabad and numbered as FIR No.304 of 2014), Hyderabad against the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.2, 19 and 20.

¶43

2 The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in conspiracy with the coparceners of the de-facto complainant and one A.M" Khusro impersonated Syed Ali Mohammad and filed revision petition before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district to claim the agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.43-09 guntas in Sy.Nos.634, 635 and 638 of Kapra village, causing wrongful loss to the de facto complainant and his father. The first accused in the case hatched a plan to grab the property i.e. agricultural land to an extent of Ac.43-09 guntas in the above survey numbers and in fuftherance of his intention he entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused and one A.M.Kushroo and all the accused knowing that Syed Ali Mohammad S/o Ahmed Sahab is original pattedar and since 1954 his name is entered in pahanis and knowing the said fact they projected and introduced one A.M.Kushroo S/o Syed Amenuddin as Syed Ali Mohammed @ Syed Ati Moharnmad Kushroo in the

¶44

¶45

proceedings before the MRO. The original pattedar Syed Ali Mohammad S/o Ahmed Sahab was not made as party and the complainant and his father were also not made parties and the two brothers of the complainant's father also were not made parties before the MRO as such they could not object before the MRO, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as a result the MRO put the accused Nos.S, 6, 7, and g and children of Orla Madhusudhan Reddy in possession of the said lands. Thus, complaining that A.M.Khusroo intentionally impersonated as Syed Ali Mohammad and filed a Revision Petition before the loint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Proc.No.D5/6310/99 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant by getting the order of the MRO got set aside and wrongful gain to themselves.

¶46

3 Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there was a series of disputes in between the other accused and the unofficial respondents pertaining to the piece of property located at Sy.Nos.634, 635 and 638 of Kapra village. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are arrayed as accused in the registered FIR along with other accused without any application of mind and in a mechanical manner. The said crime has been registered against them on a reference made by the lower Court. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers vide document

¶47

¶48

'= 7-- 7', t-/ \ ./'

¶49

No'266712002 dated 24.5.2002. The sard dispute between the other accused and the unofficiar respondents has reached finarity after series of litigations vide proceedings No.D5/6310/99 issued by the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, the subject matter ofthe schedure ofthe propefties in Sy.Nos.634, 635 and 63g of Kapra village, R.R.District have been transferred in the name of A1 and in the name of his reratives and close associates. Date of such documents are 24.5.2002 and 27.0L.2003 and vide registered agreement of sare - cum - GpA in respect of different persons by the A.1. That being the case, based upon a registered AGpA registered in the names of respective persons, upon verification, the petitioners wourd state that they have purchased the property and got it registered on the fire of sRo, vide document No.2667 of 2002 dated 24.5.2002 and having nothing to do with the alleged allegations made by the de facto complainant. The property is sltuated in Kapra village and the said complaint has been registered before the p.s.saifabad itserf wourd demonstrate the iil-intention of the de facto comprainant and influence of the de facto comprainant to have it registered onry to harass the petitioners and under the garb of the criminar prosecution the de facto complainant is trying to exeft pressure on the petitioners for the reasons best known to them' The rearned counser for the petitioner arso wourd submit that it is also a matter of fact that the said private complaint is filed on 22.8.2014 under Sections l2O-8,4I9,465 IpC r/w Section 156 (3) Cr.p.C. which was

¶50

¶51

¶52

referred by the learned Magistrate to police. The learned counsel for the petitioner wourd submit that the cause of action as agitated by the de facto comprainant was that since the Joint coflector,s office is rocated Lakdikapur, therefore, the said compraint was referred by the rearned Magrstrate to saifabad porice station and whereas the propefties are rocated at Kapra which itself denotes that the de facto comprainant has intentionaily fired the criminal petition. so far as the knowledge of the crime is concerned the de facto comprainant in his own compraint has averred that the said dispute is going on between de facto comprainant and other accused for quite a rong time and having kept quiet for such a rong time the de facto comprainant has filed the said complaint after a gap of almost 12 long years, that itself is hit by Section 468 of cr.p.c and barred by rimitation. Moreover having got knowledge of the offence long back it is a milllon dollar mystery why the de facto comprainant fired the compraint in the year 2014 against the petitioners along with other accused. However, the rearned counser for the petitioners submit that so far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, it is nowhere in the record that the petitioners are parties in the civir dispute either before the MRo, RDo or the Joint collector for that matter and not being made parties before the proceedings before the appropriate civir courts that they implicated themselves in civil proceedings and knowingly well that the petitioners are bona frde purchasers either to extract money or to grab the reft over propefty if any the said compraint has been fired

)

.,F

t/'

against the petitioners though they are not liable for the past transactions happened between the de facto complainant and the other accused and that the petitioners are not liable. Hence seeks to allow this petition and would submit that preliminary it is an established fact that the petitioners are no way concerned with the disputes between the de facto complainant and other accused and they have no knowledge about such proceedings and even if the trial is allowed to be continued still, nothing would be elicited as seen from the record that the petitioners are not involved in the alleged offence as the role of the petitioners has come into existence by virtue of purchasing the property as bona fide purchasers. Other than that nothing would come out in the stated crime.

¶58

4 On the other hand, Mr. Ramchander Goud, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the petitioners are none other than the relatives of the third accused who is the mastermind behind the entire episode of grabbing the propefi belong to the de facto complainant and his family and by suppressions the said property has been conveyed to the petitioners and that the petitioners being the close relatives of A.3 also got knowledge about the happening of the civil proceedings and the nature of conspiracy to defraud the de facto complainant and A.3 being the AGpA holder of A.1 has got the direct involvement in the stated crime and therefore claiming innocence that they are the bona fide purchasers of the

¶59

¶60

property shall not in any way absolve the criminal liability on the shoulders of the petitioners. He further submitted that so far as the delay in filing the complaint before the learned court below was nothing intentional. But upon scrutinising the entire case and upon knowing the fact that the de facto complainant was defrauded by all the accused the de facto complainant approached the lower and court and having prima facie satisfied with the averments of the complaint the lower court referred the matter to the police under Section 156 (3) cr.p.C. for investigation and accordingly the police registered the case for the alleged offences and this matter is pending by virtue of the stay granted by this Court and the investigation is not proceeded with and if the investigation is allowed to continue, the truth will come to light and the relief sought for by the petitioners at this stage is premature and if the petitioners cooperate with the police and submit their case before the police, the police would, upon verifying the facts, would file the necessary report before the learned trial court for taking cognizance either way and hence seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

¶61

5 This Court is not concerned with the aspects of the legality of the title pertaining to the schedule of property as the petitioners are already agitating their grievance before the appropriate forums. Now with regard to the issue that arises for determination before this court in this writ

¶62

¶63

¶64

petition which is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in the registered FIR along with the other accused, this Court, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Srinivas Gundturi and Ors. vs. Sepco Electric Power construction corporation and orsl and upon verifying the facts and merits of the writ petition is inclined to grant the relief sought for by the petitioners on two counts. FirsUy, the said complaint was filed after lapse of 12 long years which is hit by section 46g cr.p.c and barred by limitation and the learned trial court ought to have verifled this aspect before referring the matter to the respondent police and even under section 156 (3) Cr.P.c. the learned trial court ought to have recorded reasons before referring the matter to the police as held by the Hon,ble supreme court in srinivas Gundluri case (1 supra) wherein the Hon,ble

¶65

Supreme Court held as follows:

¶66

"From the above, it is clear that the Magistrate only ordered investigation under section 156(3) of the code. It arso shows that the Magiskate perused tie complaint without examining the merits of the craim that there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not, directed the police officer concerned for investigation under Section 156(3) oi the Code. As rightly observed by the learned single Judge of the High Court, ifre Magistrate did not bring into motion the machinery of Chapter xv of the code. He did not examine the comprainant or his witnesses under section 200 of the code which is the first step in the procedure prescribed under the said chapter. The question of taking next step of the procedure envisaged in section 202 did not arise. As righfly pointed oui by Mr. sundaram, instead of taking cognizance of the offence, the reirned Magistrate has merely allowed the apprication rired by the comprainanysEpco under section 156(3) or the code and sent the same arong with iLs annexure ior investigation by the police officer concerned under section 156(3) of the code. To make it-clear and in respect of doubt raised by Mr. singhvi to proceed under section 156(3) of the code, what is required is a bare reading of the complaint and if it disclosei a cognizable offence, then the Magistrate instead of applying his mind to the complaint for ieciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, may direct the police foi investigation. In the case on hand, the learned single Judge and Division Bench of the High €oq!!- rightly poqted out that rhe tvlagistrale did not apply his mind to the comprarnt tor deciding wh€ther or not there rs sufficient ground_forjroceeding and,

¶67

1 lzoro; B scc 206

¶68

¶69

therefore, we are of the view that the lvlaglstrate has not committed any illegality in directing the police for investigation. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that while directing the police to register FIR, the Magistrate has committed any illegality. As a matter of fact, even after receipt of such ieport, the Magistrate unde; section 190(1xb) may or may not take cognizance of offence. In other w6rds, he is not lyna^{t9 take cognizanceupon submissionof the poljce repoft by theInvestigating} officer, hence, by directing the police to fire chargesheet oi finar report and td hoti investigation with a particular result cannot be construed that the l4agistrate has exceeded his power as provided in Sub-section 3 of Seqtion 156.,,

¶70

6 In Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao

¶71

chandrojirao Angre and ors.2 the Hon'bre supreme court herd as

¶72

follows:

¶73

The legal position is we setued that when a prosecution at the initiar stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is arso for the court to take into consideration any special teatures which appear in a particurar case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest oF justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful pUrpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facLs of a case also quash the proceeding even tho-ugh it may be at a preliminary stage.

¶74

7 secondly, the learned triar Court ought to have appreciated that the

¶75

entire allegations made in the complaint pertain to the civil dispute between the de facto complainant and the other accused and the civil proceedings are actively under consideration before the respective civil courts.

¶76

8 Except the allegation that the petitioners are close relatives of A.3, no other specific allegation was made against the petitioners. The said allegation ilself per se shall not invite any criminal prosecution in the absence of any specific allegation without adducing any evidence against

¶77

, (1988) 1 SCC 692

¶78

¶79

the petitioners. Therefore, this Court does not find any substance in the said complaint.

¶80

9 Lastly, so far as the petitioners are concerned, they have got into the scene only by virtue of sale deeds which have been executed in their favour upon verification that their vendors are having absolute tiue as on that date and by the date when the petitioners have become the bona fide purchasers of the property so much of water has flown till the complaint was filed and multiple transactions seem to have taken place. However, the subject matter is pertaining to civil in nature altogether and insofar as the petitioners are concerned and dragging the petitioners into this sort of litigation is nothing but abuse of process of law.

¶81

10 Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings in FIR No'686 of 20t4 on the file of^p.S. saifabad (transferred to cCS police Station, Hyderabad and numbered as FIR N0.304 of Z0I4), Hyderabad against the petitioners herein / accused Nos.2, 19 and 20 alone are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall

¶82

stand closed.

¶83

//TRUE COPY//

¶84

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSrsiANi R*srRriii \

¶85

SECTIOMOFFICER

¶86

To,

¶87