Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 928 (AP)

D. S. MURTHY v. D. BHARATHI

2007-09-24

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2007
( 1 ) THIS revision case is filed by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 21-8-2007 in crl. M. P. No. 2988 of 2007 in C. C. No. 385 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, wherein the petition filed by the revision petitioner undersection245 (1)Cr. P. C. seekingdischarge from the prosecution was dismissed. ( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC in c. C. No. 385 of 2007. The first respondent herein is the stepmother of the petitioner-A. 1. She gave a complaint alleging that she is the owner of the house property situated in S. D. Road, Secunderabad, having got the same from her parental family and that accused 1 and 2, who are her step sons, approached the municipal authorities seeking mutation in the name of their sons accused 3 and 4 on the ground that the husband of the complainant executed a will in favour of his grand sons in respect of the said house property. The complainant further alleges that A-1 forwarded a letterto the Municipal authorities fabricating the signature of the complainant thereon purporting to seek the mutations and she came to know about it when the municipal authorities came for inspection in connection with the enquiry for mutation. According to the complainant, she never issued any such letter to the Municipal authorities and her signature was fabricated by first accused. ( 3 ) THE complaint was forwarded by the magistrate to the police for investigation and the Market police registered FIR in cr. No. 55 of 2000 under Sections 463, 646, 470 r/w 120-B IPC. Subsequently, they filed a final report referring the matter as a mistake of fact. On filing objections by the complainant before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner A-1 and 3 others. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed and the learned sessions Judge alleged the revision in respect of A-2 to A-4 but directed taking of cognizance against A-1. Thereupon, A-1 filed Crl. P. No. 4953 of 2004 seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The complainant filed Crl. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed and the learned sessions Judge alleged the revision in respect of A-2 to A-4 but directed taking of cognizance against A-1. Thereupon, A-1 filed Crl. P. No. 4953 of 2004 seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The complainant filed Crl. P. No. 1219 of 2005 questioning the orders of the learned Sessions judge exonerating A-2 to A-4 and by common order dated 19-7-2006 this Court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner A-1 holding that prima facie there was case against A-1 and confirming the order of the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC with modification that A-1 shall not be tried for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, as the said offence is not made out. The petition filed by the complainant was dismissed holding that prima facie there was no case against A-2 to a-4. The said order dated 19-07-2006 of this court wherein cognizance against A-1 was directed to taken for the offence under sections 465 and 471 IPC has become final. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY on 13-11 -2006, A-1 filed another application in Crl. M. P. No. 2988 of 2007 under Section 245 (1) Cr. P. C. seeking discharge from the prosecution in the same ground that even according to P. W. 1 it is one jagadish who submitted application to the municipal authorities, which purported to contain the signature of the complainant. The learned Magistrate by order dated 21 -8-2007 dismissed the said application holding that there is enough material on record to frame charge against A-1 for the offences under sections 465 and 471 IPC and it is not a fit case to discharge him. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is filed. ( 5 ) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State are heard. Records are perused. ( 6 ) THE specific allegations of the complainant is that she never addressed any letter to the Municipal authorities seeking mutation of the property in pursuance of the alleged will dated 24-4-1996 said to have been executed by her husband and the signature contained on the disputed letter given to the municipal Authorities by A-1 is fabricated. ( 6 ) THE specific allegations of the complainant is that she never addressed any letter to the Municipal authorities seeking mutation of the property in pursuance of the alleged will dated 24-4-1996 said to have been executed by her husband and the signature contained on the disputed letter given to the municipal Authorities by A-1 is fabricated. She claims that she is the absolute owner of the house property situated in SD Road, secunderabad and denies the execution of any will by her husband in respect of the said property. According to the petitioner A-1 his father executed a will bequeathing 2/5th share in favour of A-1 's son and 2/5th share in favour of A-1's brother's son and remaining 1/5th in favour of the complainant to be enjoyed by her during her lifetime with vested reminder in favour of the daughter of the testator. The complainant alleges that in pursuance of the alleged will of her husband, A-1 forwarded the application to the municipal authorities seeking mutation, which included an application purported to have been given by the complainant also. She further alleges that she never signed any such application and signature thereon was fabricated by A-1. It is not disputed that during the investigation, the disputed document namely the letteraddressed to the municipal authorities was sent to an experi and a report was received to the effect that it was not signed by the complainant. ( 7 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel forthe revision petitioner is that during the investigation one Jagadish was examined by the police and he stated that mutation form and the application was given by A-1 for obtaining signature of the complainant and he could not contact her in spite of repeated efforts and thereafter he himself wrote the name of the complainant at the place where she was supposed to sign and informed the same to A-1 and thereafter A-1 wrote a forwarding letter and sent application for mutation to the municipal authorities. He would therefore contend that A-1 is no way concern with the appearance of the name of the complainant on the mutation letter as it was handiwork of Jagadish and so there is no prima facie case as against A-1. He would therefore contend that A-1 is no way concern with the appearance of the name of the complainant on the mutation letter as it was handiwork of Jagadish and so there is no prima facie case as against A-1. ( 8 ) LEARNED counseiforthefirst respondent on the other hand would contend that a similar contention was raised even earlier before the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions judge and also this Court and the same was negatived by holding that there was prima faciecase against A-1 in respect of the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC and the said finding having become final, it is not open for the petitioner-A-1 to raise the self-same contention once again. ( 9 ) IN the earlier order dated 19-07-2006 in crl. P. No. 4953 of 2004 and 1219 of 2005, this court categorically held that there was prima facie case to proceed against A-1 for the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC and the said finding has become final. The factual matrix as remained the same and there has been no change of circumstances that warrant exonerating A-1. The specific allegation of the complainant is that A-1 is responsible for submission of a fabricated application purporting to containing the signature of the complainant to the municipal authorities seeking mutation in order to give effect to the alleged will of the complainant's husband, wherein, the beneficiaries are A-1's sons and a-1 's brother's sons. She categorically denied her signature on the disputed letter Ex. A. P. 8. The Hand-writing Expert also gave an opinion that the signature on Ex. P- 813 not that of the complainant. One Jagadish, who is examined by the police during the investigation claims that the letter was given to him by A-1 for obtaining signature of the complainant and as he could not contact her he himself scribed the name of the complainant and gave it to a-1 and informed the same to A-1 and thereafter, A-1 forwarded the said letter ex. P-8 along with his own forwarding letter ex. P-4 to the municipal authorities. On perusal of the disputed application Ex. P-8, the name of the complainant was not written in any capital letters but he scribed in such a way as to appear that it is signature. P-8 along with his own forwarding letter ex. P-4 to the municipal authorities. On perusal of the disputed application Ex. P-8, the name of the complainant was not written in any capital letters but he scribed in such a way as to appear that it is signature. Admittedly, the complainant is not an illiterate person and she was a doctor by profession and retired from government service. There is absolutely no reason as to why her name should be written as if she is an illiterate woman. Even if the version of Jagadish is true that he could not contact the complainant in spite of repeated efforts, he ought to have returned the document to A-1 informing him that he could not contract her. But he claims that he has subscribed the name of the complainant on the disputed document and he informed the same to A-1. It is not disputed that A-1 is an I. A. S. Officer. When Jagadish is said to have informed him that he could not secure the signature of the complainant on the disputed document and he himself wrote her name, A-1 ought notto have forwarded the application to the municipal authorities, But still he forwarded the application with the knowledge that the signature thereon was not that of the complainant. ( 10 ) SECTION 471 IPC renders a person who fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document liable for punishment in the same manner as if he had forged such document. The question as to whether or not it is a forged document and whether or not he used the document as genuine knowing it to be forged are matters to be considered atthetimeof trial after necessary evidence is adduced. The material on record at this stage shows prima faciecase against the petitioner A-1 so as to proceed against him for the alleged offences under Section 465 and 471 IPC. ( 11 ) IN the light of the earlier order of this court dated 19-07-2006 in Crl. P. Nos. 4953of 2004 and 1219/05 holding that there was prima facie case against A-1, the petition in crl. M. P. 2988 of 2007 filed by A-1 seeking discharge is yet another effort by him to stall further proceedings. ( 11 ) IN the light of the earlier order of this court dated 19-07-2006 in Crl. P. Nos. 4953of 2004 and 1219/05 holding that there was prima facie case against A-1, the petition in crl. M. P. 2988 of 2007 filed by A-1 seeking discharge is yet another effort by him to stall further proceedings. The finding of the learned magistrate that there is enough material on record to frame charge against petitioner A-1 for the offences under Sections 465 and 471 ipc does not call for any interference and the petition for discharge was rightly dismissed. ( 12 ) IN the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. .