Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 666 (AP)

Sunkati Mamatha Siricilla v. State of A. P.

2014-06-04

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2014
ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. The petitioners, who are accused No.1 to 6 in Crime No.49 of 2013 of Gangadhara Police Station, Karimnagar District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, filed the present application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of the investigation in the above crime. 2. Originally a private complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., which was referred to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. 3. The averments in the complaint are as under : One Peruka Pushpalatha and the 2nd respondent/informant are the joint owners and possessors of land ad-measuring Ac.3.15½ guntas each totally admeasuring Ac.7-00 guntas in Survey No.798 situated at Gangadhara village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Originally one Sunkati Sujatha @ Pooja was the owner of the above land and she is alleged to have sold the land to the informant and Pushpalatha, through a registered sale deed bearing No.3669 of 2010 dated 29.12.2010, for a valid consideration. It is alleged that the names of informant and Pushpalatha are shown as pattedars and possessors of the said land in the revenue records for the year 2010-2011. Since then the complainant claims to be in physical possession of the said land. On 06.04.2013 the informant came to know that her land is sold by A.1 to A.4 through document No.1095 of 2013 dated 30.03.2013 in which Accused No.5 and 6 stood as witnesses. The averments in the complaint discloses that A.1 is neither the pattedar nor possessor of the said land, and Patta No.1799 mentioned therein belongs to one Pabba Anjaiah and that the said document was created by all the accused, only with a view to cause wrongful loss to the informant. Basing on these allegations, the above crime came to be registered against Accused No.1 to 6. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that even accepting the allegations in the report to be true, no offence is made out against any of the petitioners. According to him, the 1st petitioner herein is the wife of one Sailu @ Ranadheer and after the demise of her husband, she being the legally wedded wife of Sailu, inherited the property and since then has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. According to him, the 1st petitioner herein is the wife of one Sailu @ Ranadheer and after the demise of her husband, she being the legally wedded wife of Sailu, inherited the property and since then has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since she is the absolute owner of the property, alienated the same in favour of Accused No.2 to 4, for a valid consideration and that the averments in the complaint are all false and untenable. He further submits that the issue involved in the present case is purely civil in nature and continuation of investigation against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law. In support of her contention, the 1st petitioner placed on record the electoral roll, ration card issued by the Tahsildar and also the marriage certificate said to have been issued by the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Purohit Sangam. 5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the 1st petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of Sailu, and that she has no right or claim over the property. He placed on record several documents to show that one Sunkati Sujatha @ Pooja is the wife of late Sailu and that she being the owner of the property sold the same in favour of the informant and Pushpalatha. He submits that as the issue involves disputed questions of fact, the investigation cannot be interdicted at the threshold under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the police have completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Court, but the same was not acted upon, in view of the stay granted by this Court. In view of the above development she submits that it may not be proper for this Court to pass any order in the application which has been filed for quashing the investigation. 7. A perusal of the material placed on record would show that on 26.11.2013, while permitting the counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the criminal petition in so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, issued notice to the No.2 to 6. While issuing notice, this Court granted stay of investigation in so far as petitioners 2 to 6-accused No.2 to 6 on 26.11.2013. While issuing notice, this Court granted stay of investigation in so far as petitioners 2 to 6-accused No.2 to 6 on 26.11.2013. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the police have completed the investigation and filed charge sheet before the Court on 30.09.2013, which was returned on 21.11.2013 i.e., prior to the order of stay granted by this Court. Since this Court granted stay on 26.11.2013, the police could not re-present the same after complying with the objections raised by the Office. The said facts are not disputed by either side. Since the police have investigated into the matter, collected the incriminating material against the accused, and filed a charge sheet, it may not be proper for this Court to quash the investigation. 8. Relying on the judgments of this Court reported in Matchumari China Venkatareddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 CRL.L.J.257, and Punjaram v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 CRL.L.J. 4658, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that defective filing of charge sheet does not amount to filing of a charge sheet as contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., and that this Court can invoke its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the First Information Report. 9. Both the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, refer to applicability of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., in case of police not filing a charge sheet within the period stipulated therein. Both the cases referred above dealt with the issue as to whether filing of a defective charge sheet amounts to filing of a charge sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of granting statutory bail. The situation on hand is totally different. 10. As stated above, the investigating officer after collecting all the necessary material filed a charge sheet against all the accused which was returned due to technical objections and the same could not be complied with due to operation of stay granted by this Court. Since the police have collected the material and filed charge sheet showing the petitioners as accused, it would be wholly inappropriate to quash the First Information Report without taking note of the contents of the averments in the charge sheet and the material gathered by the police during investigation. Since the police have collected the material and filed charge sheet showing the petitioners as accused, it would be wholly inappropriate to quash the First Information Report without taking note of the contents of the averments in the charge sheet and the material gathered by the police during investigation. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation into the said crime cannot be quashed when it culminated into filing of charge sheet before the appropriate Court, though not yet numbered. 11. In view of the above, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy available under law, in case the Court takes cognizance of the matter, pursuant to the charge sheet filed in Crime No.49 of 2013 of Gangadhara P.S., Karimnagar District. 12. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, filed in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.