Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 873 (AP)

Mohd. Sayeed v. State of Telangana

2015-11-19

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2015
ORDER : B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. The petitioners are A4 and A5 of Crime No. 100 of 2015 of P.S. Zaheerabad Town, Medak District. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The crime registered for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467,468 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is outcome of the private complaint filed by the de facto complainant dated 15.4.2015 and the learned Magistrate referred the said complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to the Station House Officer, Zaheerabad Town, to register the crime and to investigate. 2. The petitioners are A4 and A5 among the five accused persons. The averments in the complaint reads in nutshell in setting the law in motion that the de facto complainant - 2nd respondent herein is absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the agricultural land in S.No.53/-6 of Acs.2.11 gts., and S.No.53/-3 of Acs.2.06 gts., total Acs.4.17 gts., of Kothur-D Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District. In 1992 the complainant purchased the said land under registered Sale Deed No. 1785/92 dated 26.6.1992 from one Jamalpur Kishanlal S/o. Mallaji resident of Hyderabad. Since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the property as owner and pattadar and the lands are mutated in her name in the revenue records and also she was issued pattadar passbook and title deed bearing No.Y-33763 by the revenue authorities, that by the time of sale deed, the de facto complainant was residing at Kacheeguda Nimboli Adda, Hyderabad 27 and presently she is residing at Goshamahal Joshiwadi, Hyderabad. It is further averred that after purchase of the land, she raised wire fencing with fencing stones around the said land and constructed two rooms for labour and watchmen. She is cultivating the said land and raising crops. It is further averred that after purchase of the land, she raised wire fencing with fencing stones around the said land and constructed two rooms for labour and watchmen. She is cultivating the said land and raising crops. The said land is abutting to NH9, which is towards south (northern side of the said land), that while so 6 or 7 months back the complainant came to know that the National Highway Authorities acquired such adjacent lands for road widening part of the complainant's land also under acquisition, that due to ill health of her son, she could not approach Revenue Divisional Officer - Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy, so also her husband with regard to claiming compensation over the land for his business preoccupation and also in the month of March 2015, the complainant approached Land Acquisition Officer, Sanga Reddy, for payment of compensation for acquisition of the land belongs to her. She came to know that these accused persons are trying to withdraw the compensation amount with the forged, false and fabricated documents. Having suspected their mischief, she approached the Sub-Registrar Office, Zaheerabad on 12.3.2015 and on enquiry came to know that A1 got executed registered sale agreement-cum-GPA vide document No.3599/2010 dated 26.6.2010 registered at Zaheerabad Sub-Registrar's Office in his favour as is executed by some other by impersonating the de facto complainant, forging the thumb impression of the de facto complainant and the photograph affixed on the agreement of sale-cum-GPA, therein at Page 6 in vendors column of some third party and not of the complainant and even the thumb impression in the above GPA does not belong to her and those are forged and she never sold the said land, neither received the sale consideration from A1 nor she executed GPA in his favour and A2 and A3, falsely identified the alleged vendor as owner of the said land and signed as identifying witness in the said document in collusion with A1. Thus A1, in connivance with A2 and A3, impersonated and cheated the complainant and created forged and fabricated the document in cheating the complainant behind her back with dishonest intention to have wrongful gain and without any right or title over the property. Thus A1, in connivance with A2 and A3, impersonated and cheated the complainant and created forged and fabricated the document in cheating the complainant behind her back with dishonest intention to have wrongful gain and without any right or title over the property. She further averred that subsequently on the strength of the GPA, A1 sold the above land to A4 under registered sale deed document No.6069/2011 dated 1.12.2011 registered on 3.12.2011 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Zaheerabad, and A4 purchased the land knowingly that A1 has no right or title and without verifying the title and subsequently, A4 got fabricated false revenue records and sold the land in favour of A5 under registered sale deed 17/2014 dated 2.1.2014 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Zaheerabad, without any right or title. Thus accused persons created the forged and false document to have wrongful gain and to defeat the right of the complainant behind her back and thereby committed offence supra. Hence, she approached the Sub-Inspector of Zaheerabad and gave complaint on 2.1.2014, however, police advised her to approach the Court and did not receive. Hence to take action. 3. There are 8 enclosures as list of documents to the private complaint i.e. Xerox copy of Registered sale deed document No. 1786/1992 dated 26.6.1992, Xerox copy of Pattadar Passbook No.Y-33763 in the name of the complainant, Xerox copy of Title deed book No.Y-33763 in the name of the complainant, Xerox copy of the certified copy of registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA document No.3599/2010, dated 26.6.2010 (false and forged document), Xerox copy of certified copy of registered sale deed document No.6069/2011 dated 1.12.2011 (false and fabricated document), Xerox copy of registered sale deed document No. 17/2014 dated 2.1.2014 (false and fabricated document), Xerox copy of Ration Card of complainant, Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant. 4. The order of the learned Magistrate referring the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 15.4.2015 reads that the original complaint of U. Padma for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 read with 109 I.P.C. being transmitted for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. 4. The order of the learned Magistrate referring the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 15.4.2015 reads that the original complaint of U. Padma for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 read with 109 I.P.C. being transmitted for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. A perusal of the said endorsement of the learned Magistrate in transmitting the private complaint for police investigation shows there is no reasons assigned much less referred in the complaint, at least in brevity, to consider for referring to the police for investigation even the complainant sought for taking cognizance on the private complaint. 6. Pursuant to which, the above crime is registered and it is pending. It is to quash the same so far as the petitioners - A4 and A5, they filed the present application. 7. The contentions are that the petitioners - A4 and A5 not committed any offence as alleged by the de facto complainant and they are innocent and falsely implicated and the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind as to complicity of the petitioners in the crime while referring the complaint to the police investigation as it is very case that the GPA is forged and fabricated, for which none of the petitioners - A4 and A5 are parties in privy even from the very complaint, but for A1 if at all with A2 and A3 attestors and identifying witnesses and there is nothing to show the knowledge to A4 and A5 so far as so-called GPA concerned and A4 in turn A5 are the bona fide purchasers for consideration and they are given pattadar passbooks and title deeds and their names entered into revenue records and filed one J. Kishanlal, who is the vendor of 2nd respondent filed OS No. 158 of 2012 before the VII Additional District Court, Medak, at Sangareddy, against Al, Md. Sayeed, one Abdul Rasheed and the de facto complainant - U. Padma Bai and the same is settled in Lok Adalath in Case No.279 of 2013 dated 8.7.2013 and the 2nd respondent - vendor, the plaintiff therein agreed that the first petitioner - A1 is the owner of the suit schedule property i.e. Sy.No.53 ad-measuring Acs.2.11 gts., and in Sy.No.53/A-3 ad-measuring Acs.2.06 gts., total Acs.4.17 gts., situated at Kothur-D Village, Kohir Mandal, Medak District, and that Abdul Rasheed and the de facto complainant - U. Padma Bai agreed therein by which they have no right over the property. Basing on the Lok Adalath settlement, dated 8.7.2013, the first petitioner i.e. A4 herein sold the property in favour of the 2nd petitioner - A5 under registered sale deed dated 2.2.2014 vide document No. 17 of 2014 and therefrom there is nothing to show that the sale is without any right or title or the power of attorney-cum-sale agreement in favour of A1 by the vendor is without any iota of right and thereby the crime proceedings are liable to be quashed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the expression of the apex Court reported in Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 775 (SC) = (2009) 8 SCC 751 and in State of Karnataka and another v. Pastor P. Raju, 2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 594 (SC). 9. The 2nd respondent - de facto complainant appeared through advocate and filed counter. Page 2 of the annexure to counter contain statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statement last 5th line at best contains only an allegation against A4 and not even against A5. So A5 is the vendee from A4 in January 2014 as referred supra under registered document No. 17 of 2014, that too it is subsequent to the Lok Adalaath settlement referred supra dated 8.7.2013 Lok Adalath Case No. 279 of 2013 of the civil suit between J. Kishanlal and Al, one Abdul Rasheed and the de facto complainant and the Lok Adalath award clearly speaks among the three defendants and the plaintiff, and the 3rd defendant i.e. de facto complainant has been categorically stated that Acs. 4.17 gts., covered by the property in dispute, that petitioner or his legal heirs have no right, title over the schedule property and the plaintiff and first defendant i.e. A1 compromised in their presence and he is the owner of the property being the pattadar, that the defendants 2 and 3 Including de facto complainant supra admitted the sale transactions in favour of them respectively and the plaintiff admits the same and referred registered ale deed dated 26.6.1992 as true, which is a private complaint document No.1 in favour of the de facto complainant and also admitted the registered document dated 26.6.2010 i.e. the complainant enclosed document No.4 sale agreement-cum-GPA in favour of A1 herein and also registered document dated 1.12.2011 i.e. document No.5 of the complainant sale deed in favour of A4 obtained from A1 pursuant to the GPA. Thus therefrom even once the document of title in relating to the A1 and A4 are admitted by the de facto complainant and third defendant in the suit filed by the father of A1 as plaintiff showing as A1 and the first defendant, it is difficult to sustain the criminal prosecution from the present private complaint of the de facto complainant dated 15.4.2015. 10. Having regard to the above, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed without prejudice to any claim of civil remedy to the de facto complainant. 11. Accordingly, and in the result, the criminal petition is allowed. 12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.