Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 744 (AP)

Nagabhushnam v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2014-06-18

K.G.SHANKAR

body2014
Judgment : 1. These two Criminal Petitions are disposed of through this common order. The second accused in Crime No.76 of 2013 of Arvapalli Police Station, Nalgonda District filed Crl. Petition No.9703 of 2003. A.1 in the same case filed Crl. Petition No.13318 of 2013. Both the petitioners seek for the quashment of the First Information Report (FIR). Hence, both the petitioners are disposed of through this common order. 2. The third respondent is the de facto complainant. The second accused is his daughter. The first accused is the Village Revenue Officer working in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Arvapalli, Nalgonda. It is the case of the third respondent/de facto complainant that A.2 created a settlement deed in her favour for an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Survey No.474, Vardhamanakota village, Arvapalli Mandal as if the third respondent executed the settlement deed in favour of the second accused on 13.12.1999. It is the case of Smt. N. Archana, learned counsel for the third respondent that at the time of the marriage of the second accused, there was a demand for dowry whereupon the third respondent agreed to give Ac.1.00 guntas of land in Survey NO.474 in favour of the second accused. She pointed out that the third respondent owns Ac.15.00 guntas of land. He has three children including the second accused. Her contention is that when the third respondent was ready to execute the settlement deed for Ac.1.00 guntas of land in favour of the second accused, the second accused obtained settlement deed for Ac.5.00 guntas of land misrepresenting to the third respondent that the third respondent was executing a settlement deed for Ac.1.00 guntas of land only. 3. The learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent is 70 years old and did not know the contents of the settlement deed before he signed the same. She submitted that the offences under Sections 419, 420, 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code prima facie are made out against A.1 & A.2 and submitted that there is no justification to seek for the quashment of the FIR. 4. She submitted that the offences under Sections 419, 420, 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code prima facie are made out against A.1 & A.2 and submitted that there is no justification to seek for the quashment of the FIR. 4. Sri R. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the third respondent executed the settlement deed dated 13.12.1999 in favour of his daughter (A.2) and that A.2 has been in possession from the date of the settlement deed. He further pointed out that the revenue records were mutated in the name of A.2 in the year 2000. He also submitted that A.2 later sold parts of the land to third parties in the year 2000 and that no objection was raised either by the third respondent or by any other person regarding the title of A.2. 5. The learned counsel for the third respondent, on the other hand, submitted that when the revenue records were to be mutated in the name of A.2, notice was not issued to the third respondent calling for his objections. She further stated that she was not aware about the alleged settlement deed for Ac.5.00 guntas of land till the third respondent received summons from the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Tungathurthy in O.S.No.24 of 2012 which was laid by A.2 against the third respondent as well as against the brothers of A.2 alleging that they were interfering with her possession over the property covered by the gift deed. The learned counsel for the accused also submitted that A.2 initially obtained ad-interim injunction from the trial Court and that subsequently, a temporary injunction was granted in favour of A.2 on merits. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and that the prosecution of the accused is not sustainable. 6. The learned counsel for the third respondent placed reliance upon State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 )in support of her contention. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and that the prosecution of the accused is not sustainable. 6. The learned counsel for the third respondent placed reliance upon State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal ( AIR 1992 SC 604 )in support of her contention. The Supreme Court observed that it would be justified for the Court to exercise the powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C. if the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the allegations of the complaint certainly constitute the offences alleged against both the accused. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon Peddolla Narsimulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2013 (1) ALD Crl. 665 (AP). It was noticed by a learned single Judge of this Court: “7. The questions viz., whether the second respondent can protect his possession or whether the first accused entered into the land on the ground that the second respondent did not acquire any valid right to the property are the matters which have to be decided by the civil Court. Certainly in my view, the dispute between the parties does not involve any criminal offence requiring any investigation by the police. Keeping quiet for over a period of 14 years and lodging a report with the police alleging commission of offence of cheating against the accused, in my view is abuse of process of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioners/accused cannot be subjected to any criminal prosecution and the parties have to work out their remedies before a civil Court. This dispute undoubtedly is purely of civil in nature and resorting to criminal prosecution in a case of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law and if it is allowed, it will result in miscarriage of justice.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 220 (SC)). In that case, it was noticed by the Supreme Court as under: “41. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 220 (SC)). In that case, it was noticed by the Supreme Court as under: “41. Even if all the averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the case for prosecution under Sections 420 and 467 IPC is not made out against the appellants. To prevent abuse of the process and to secure the ends of justice, it becomes imperative to quash the FIR and any further proceedings emanating therefrom. 42. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressure the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the dispute is a civil dispute and that O.S.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tungathurthy is pending adjudication whereunder the rival claims would be considered. He submitted that prima facie case is not made out against the accused for rejecting the application. 10. Be it noted that the allegations against the accused are that A.2 created forged documents and that A.1 effected mutation in connivance with A.2 without following the Rules. In the absence of contrary evidence, the allegations certainly would constitute offences. One of the fundamental tests to determine whether a prima facie case is made out or not is to consider whether a case would be made out in the absence of contrary evidence, if the allegations are accepted as true. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent, if the allegations made by the third respondent are accepted, they would certainly constitute an offence. Added to it, the case is still under investigation. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent, if the allegations made by the third respondent are accepted, they would certainly constitute an offence. Added to it, the case is still under investigation. At this stage, I do not consider it appropriate to thwart the investigation by quashing the FIR. I consider that the request of the accused to quash the FIR deserves to be rejected. 11. As submitted by the learned counsel for the accused, A.1 is a government servant and A.2 is a lady. The dispute undoubtedly has civil flavour, although criminal elements are also found in the case. I, therefore, consider that it would be appropriate to direct the police not to arrest the accused pending investigation. 12. Accordingly, these Criminal Petitions are disposed of granting liberty to police to proceed with the investigation in Crime No.76 of 2013 of Arvapalli Police Station, Nalgonda subject to the condition that police shall not effect the arrest of A.1 & A.2 in connection with this case till the investigation is completed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.