Allowed

Konda Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Jan 2024CRLP/1046/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 406 IPC. The Court held the dispute concerned family property already subject to High Court restraint orders and civil litigation, making it a civil matter unsuitable for criminal trial, noting suppression of prior litigation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against petitioners in C.C. No. 159 of 2017 are quashed.

Konda Srinivas Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32s1 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE FOURTH^{DAY OF} JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1046 OF^20'18

¶7

Between:

¶8

Konda Srinivas, S/o. Late Rajaiah,^Age. 44^{years, Occ: Private Employee,} R/o. Abaya Residency, H.No.1-7-752, Shanntinagar,Subedari,^hanumakonda, Warangal.

¶9

Konda Kamalamma, Wo. Late^{Rajaiah,Age. 63 years, Occ: Housewife,R/o} H.No. 1 3-6-22. Matawada,Warangal,Warangal^District.

¶10

Bura Swathi @ Sarojana, Wo.^{Prakash,Age: 40 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o} H.NO.55-2-100, Banli Colony, Bheemavaram^{Village,Hasanparthy} Mandal,Warangal District

¶11

Konda Srilashmi @ Srilatha, W/o.^{Thatikonda Nagaraju,} {9e.^{as years,Occ:} Housewife R/o. 4-3-5-25 Kothur, Hanumakonda,Warangal^District

¶12

K.Narasimna Reddy, S/o. Late^{Buchi Reddy,Age: 63 yejrrsr Occ: Retired} Employee, R/o. H.No. 24-7122711. Pragathi^{Nagar, Near REC Petrol Bunk,} Hanumakonda, Warangal Diskict.

¶13

...Petitioners/Accused¹ to⁴ &⁶

¶14

AND

¶15

State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Courtat Hyderabad.}

¶16

K.Shobha Rani, Wo. Linga^{Murthy,Age: 40} r"rr",^{:":;:::T"*::"} H.No. 1 3-6-22,Matwada,Warangal^District.

¶17

...2nd Res^po ndenUCom P^la inant

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^{praying that in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds^{of Criminal Petition,the High Courtmay} be pleased to call for the Records^{relating to C.C.No 159 of 2017 on the file of the} Court of Vl Additional Judicial First Class^{magistrate at Warangal and quash the} proceedings in C.C.No. 159 of 2017.

¶19

l.A. NO: 1OF 2018

¶20

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in thecircumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal^{Petition,the High Court may} be pleased to stay all further^{proceedings of the petitionerin C.C.No.159 of 2017} on the file of the Court of Vl-Additional^{JudicialFirst Class Magistrateat} Warangal, pending the disposal of the Crl. Petition.

¶21

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandumof} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^{hearingthe argumentsof Sri} A.PRABHAKAR RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners^{and the AdditionalPublic} Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No-^'1 and of Sri^{T.P.Acharya, Advocate} for the Respondent No.²

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶24

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1O46 of 2018

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal Petition is hled to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to 4 & 6 in C.C.No.159 of 2Ol7 on the h1e of VI Additional Junior First Class Magistrate^at Wararrgal for the offences under Sections 420,^{468, 47 1 and} 406 of IPC.

¶27

a 2. The 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant filed complaint alleging that her husband Konda Linga Murthy has two brothers namely Konda Srinivas (A1), Konda Krishna Murthy (not accused). He has two sisters namely Bura Swathi (A3) and Konda Srilakshmi (A4) l4t^ petitioner. A2 is the mother. There is family property to an extent of Acs.2.23 guntas. However, after the death of father of A1, the properties were not distributed. On 25.06.20 14, A1 created a fake passbook by separating 0.35 guntas from Acs.2.23 guntas and with the help of A2, who is the mother of ,{1, sisters A3 artd 44 , sold the said 0.35 guntas for sale consideration of Rs. 13,13,000/- to 49. Having come to know about the

¶28

i_.,.^.t

¶29

¶30

trarrsaction, the defacto complainant obtained documents. They came to know that fake patta documents and fake passbooks were prepared. on the basis of the said farse documents, A1 sold the joint propert5r for which reason, the defacto complainant filed complaint seeking investigation.

¶31

On the basis of the said complaint, the police hled charge sheet against the accused 1 to 12. It is alleged in the charge sheet that illegal acts were committed by A1 to A5 by fabricating documents. A6, AT, attested as witnesses in the sale deed of A.9 and the remaining land of Ac. 1.2g guntas was sold to A1O and ,A.1l on 25.06.2014. For the said transaction, A7 and A8 attested as witnesses.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on the very same allegations, the husband of the defacto complainant namely Konda Linga Murthy, who is the brother of A1 hled a private complaint on Og. lO.2Ol4. The said complaint was registered as S.R.No.54 16 of 2014. By order dated 21.01.2OL5, the VI Additional Judiciai Magistrate of First Class at Warangal dismissed the complaint as there were

¶33

no grounds to proceed against the accused. Thereafter, questioning the said orders, Criminal Revision was hled vide Crl.R.P.No.35 of 2015 before the Sessions Court. During pendency of the said revision, the 2"d respondent, who is the wife of Konda Linga Murthy hied complaint regarding the very salne transactions, which the VI JFCM Court, Warangal dismissed as not maintainable. The present complaint^was filed on 28.08.20 15. On 21 .O1.2O15 complaint was dismissed and dismissal of the complaint n,as conhrmed by the learned Sessions Judge on 14.12.2017. While the revision was pending, police hled charge sheet on 05.04.2016. There cannot be two complaints on the very same transactions and the disputes are purely civil in nature.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ defacto complainant would submit that earlier complaint did not specify regarding fabrication of patta No.674, pass book No.81864 and the other patta No.675, pass book no.Bl862. Both the pattas were issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Warangal Manda-l. However, on the

¶35

l- -,{

¶36

¶37

application hled under Right to Information Act, the office of the Tahsildar, Warangal Mandal has given reply on 24.07.2015 stating that the details of the said patta pass books were not available in 1-B Form 7, 17 records during inspection. Since the earlier complaint hled by the husband did not specify regarding the pass books, present complaint can be maintained ald the accused have to be tried for labrication of documents.

¶38

Learned Magistrate, on the basis of complaint filed by the husband of the 2"a respondent found that there are disputes in between the brothers and family members which were pending adjudication. High Court had granted order of injunction in ASMP No.1O51 of 2OO7 in AS No.279 of 2OO7 filed by A5 and other legal heirs of Konda Lingaiah restraining the lega-l heirs from alienating the subject land until further orders. In case, the land was alienated, it would amount to violation of the orders passed by High Court in A.S.No.279 of 2OO7 for which remedy lies eisewhere. Further, the aggrieved

¶39

.*r'/

¶40

)

¶41

have to seek cancellation of the documents or declaration to the effect that the documents were nul1 and void

¶42

In the criminal revision filed, the learned Sessions Judge found that there are disputes between legal heirs, which are subject matter of partition suit O.S.No.16 of 2000. Aggrieved by the orders in the suit, A.S.No.279 of 2007 was hled Learned Sessions Judge further discussed that sale deed, agreement of sa-le-cum- GPA and registered GPA, all dated 12.O6.2OL4 were executed by A5 in respect of the suit land. High Court had restrained the legal heirs from alienating the subject land until further orders. The learned Sessions Judge further concurred with the finding of the learned Magistrate that the parties should have approached High Court or the Civil Court seeking cancellation of the documents executed by A1 to A'5.

¶43

B. The accusation by the 2"d respondent regarding the sale of land by the petitioners herein was already filed before the Magistrate Court by the husband of the 2"d respondent. A

¶44

a',

¶45

¶46

reading of the orders in the crimina-l Revision petition No.35 of 2015, which was decided on 14.12.2017, it was not brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the complaint filed by the 2"d respondent and consequent charge sheet.

¶47

In the complaint hled by the husband of the 2"d respondent, both the registered sale deeds dated 12.06.2014 and also the orders passed by this Court in ASMP No.1O51 of 2OO7 were hled.

¶48

The sa,le deeds which were registered were already hled in the private complaint and considered by the learned Magistrate and also the learned Sessions Judge. On the very same aliegations during the pendency of adjudication of the compiaint hled by the 2"d respondent,s husband, separate complaint regarding the very same transactions cannot be hled. The 2"d respondent has suppressed the fact that her husband had fited a crimina_l complaint before the Court which was pending adjudication at the time of lodging the complaint by her. Regarding the very same transactions, the

¶49

¶50

husbar-rd was prosecuting the private complaint by ftling Revision petition before the Sessions Court. The^{police a.lso} during investigation did not refer to the pending adjudication before the learned Sessions Judge regarding the complaint filed by the 2"d respondent's husband.

¶51

1 1. To attract an offence of cheating, there should^be an^act of deception. The person so deceived should^{have delivered} property being induced by the act ol deception. To attract^an offence under Section 468 ol^IPC, a^person should^{have made} false documents with an intention to cause^damage or support any claim or to commit fraud. Section⁴⁷ I ol^IPC is^lor using^a labricated document with a fraudulent, dishonest intention,^as genuine, having knowledge about the falsity of the document.

¶52

Admittedly, disputes afe regarding the family^joint property. Restraint orders were passed by this Court from alienating the property. Alienation, if any, would be void^for the reason of the restraint orders^passed by this Court, subject to outcome of the^Appeal. As already found by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, the sale

-1

f':,!l

transactions dated 25.06.2014, disposing the subject land under two different sale deeds on the very sarne day, the 2.,a respondent and her husband ought to have taken steps to cancel the said documents.

¶57

For the reasons best known to the 2.d respondent and also her husband, two different compraints were fired and the 2"a respondent had not referred to the pending adjudication of the criminal complaint filed by her husband before the Sessions Court. Likewise, the 2",r respondent,s husband also did not bring to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge regarding criminal complaint filed by the wife about the very same sale transactions.

¶58

The a-rgument of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the patta pass books numbers which were mentioned in the sale deeds were not mentioned in the complaint of the 2.a respondent,s husband, for which reason, separate complaints ca, be maintained, is incorrect. When the sale documents which are genesis of the crimina-l complaint filed by husband of 2"d respondent were considered by the

¶59

¶60

Magistrate and Sessions Court, filing separate complaint on the ground that numbers of pass books mentioned in the sale deeds are incorrect, is not tenable.

¶61

1 5. For suppression of material information before the Sessions Court and present police compiaint, further also for the reason of none of the ingredients of any of the penal provisions being made out, this Court is inciined to quash the proceed ings against the petitioners.

¶62

In the result, the proceedings against the petitioners/Al to A,4 & 4.6 in C.C.No.159 of 2Ol7 on the file of VI Additiona-l Junior First Class Magistrate at Warangal, are hereby quashed.

¶63

Criminal Petition is atiowed

¶64

sd/- A.v.s.PRAsAD ASSTSTANT REGT9TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

slv

SECTION OFFICER

One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. SURENDER (For His Lordship kind Perusal)

¶69

To,

¶70

1 The Vl Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal.

¶71

2a The 1 1 LR Station CopiesHouse Officer, Hanamkonda Police Station, Waiangal.

¶72

4 The Under _Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhr

¶73

5 The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Burtdings at Hyderabed.^-

¶74

b One CC to Sri A. Prabhakar Rao. Advocate IOPUCI I7 One CC to Sri T.P.Acharya, Adv6cate [OPUb] Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶75

o Two CD Copies

I i

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410112024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1046 of 2018

s IATE q
!.j
., I
o t\ ttB $t\ ,'/
o
+ D F911 ,f('

¶82

ALLOWING THE CRLP

¶83

\A
.-.7
2-

Konda Srinivas v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Konda Srinivas v. 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

P.Hanmanth Rao Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

M/s.Ge Godavari Engineering Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

Purshotham Mallaiah Vs the State of Telangana

Mukesh Singh Vs The State of Telangana

Kalla Ramu Vs The State of Telangana

Bhukya Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana