Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 136 (AP)

Nadella Puma Chandra Rao v. State of A. P.

2019-07-18

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2019
ORDER : D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 105 of 2019, on the file of Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District, against the petitioner/accused. The offences alleged are under Sections 447, 465, 468, 471, 474, 417 and 419 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard, Sri Prabhala Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 3. This case has a very long history. The complainant is one Radhika Devabhaktuni, the daughter of one Sri Vidhya Sagar. She has filed a private complaint, alleging the offences under Sections 417, 419, 465 of IPC, etc., were committed by the accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance, forwarded the complaint to the police. The police registered FIR No. 105 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 447, 465, 468, 471, 474, 417 and 419 of Indian Penal Code r/w Section 156(3), of Criminal Procedure Code. Questioning the same, the present petition is filed. 4. The essential issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is hopelessly barred by time. He submits that a reading of the private complaint talks about an alleged fabricated and forged letter, dated 29-01-1998, executed by Vidhya Sagar, the father of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that on the basis of the dates available that the complaint is barred by time and that the learned Magistrate took cognizance mechanically without an application of mind. He points of the following: (a) The letter executed on 29-01-1998 whereas the private complaint was filed in 2018; (b) He points out that the letter is referred in the plaint in O.S. No. 275 of 2001 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda by the very same complainant. He draws the attention of this Court in para-7 of the plaint wherein the letter supposedly executed by Vidhya Sagar is mentioned and it is also clearly stated that the alleged letter is fabricated and forged. It is also stated Vidhya Sagar never signed on the letter and that the contents of the letter are not scribed by Vidhya Sagar and that they would amount to be acted. It is also stated Vidhya Sagar never signed on the letter and that the contents of the letter are not scribed by Vidhya Sagar and that they would amount to be acted. (c) In reply to this plaint, a written statement was filed in November, 2002 wherein there is an express reference to this letter, dated 29-01-1998 in paragraph-9. (d) The plaint in O.S. No. 275 of 2001 was then amended and additional paragraph-7(a)&,(b) were added. Paragraph-7(b) was added as per orders, dated 01-08-2008 and the letter, dated 29-01-1998 is referred to as a "forged letter". (e) To this, an additional written statement was filed on 16.02.2009 wherein the letter, dated 29-01-1998 was again discussed in length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that both the parties including the complainant were aware of the existence of this letter prior to 2001 itself when the plaint was filed. Alternatively, he submits that the written statement of November, 2002 contains an express reference of this letter, which is again reiterated in the amended plaint and the additional written statement. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that from 2001 onwards and latest by 2008, the averments are dear that the letter is "forged". This is an alternative argument. The learned counsel still lays stress on the plaint filed in 2001 by father of the plaintiff itself wherein he mentions that the alleged letter is a fabricated and forged letter. The complainant, who is 2nd respondent herein is also added as a party to the suit. Learned counsel states that the dispute is purely a civil dispute and that it is for the civil Court to decide all the issues raised including the alleged forgery. He also submits that as per the reading of the complaint that is filed, an Expert was already appointed and he also gave an opinion about the alleged forgery. The learned counsel, therefore, argues that the private complaint that is filed in 2018 is hopelessly barred by time and that an essentially civil dispute is converted into a criminal case. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments in the case of (1) Mrs. Sarah Mathew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director, Dr. KM. Cherian and others with M/s. HT Media Ltd. and others v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) with M/s. Hindustan Media Venture Ltd. and others v. State (Govt. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments in the case of (1) Mrs. Sarah Mathew v. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director, Dr. KM. Cherian and others with M/s. HT Media Ltd. and others v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) with M/s. Hindustan Media Venture Ltd. and others v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 72 (SC) : (2014) 2 SCC 62 ; (2) State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 (SC) 1054 ; (3) Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala and others, (2019) 2 SCC 401 ; the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (4) Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seetharam and another Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019 and lastly the questions the manner in which the cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and relies upon the judgment in (5) Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 26 (SC) : AIR 2015 (SC) 1758 . Therefore, the learned counsel prays for quashing of the entire proceedings. 6. In reply to this, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argues that there is no period of limitation prescribed for these offences. The bar of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is confined to other offences with lesser punishment and not for the present cases or the offences alleged. He draws the attention of this Court to Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. and states that the limitation prescribed thereunder is (a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 7. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relies upon the judgment in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 50 (SC) : (2007) 7 SCC 394 and argues that crime never dies and that the Limitation Act has not expressly apply to Criminal Procedure. He also relies upon a limited application. He also submits that the expert gave an opinion and he came to a conclusion that the signature is forged, the complaint has been filed. He also relies upon a limited application. He also submits that the expert gave an opinion and he came to a conclusion that the signature is forged, the complaint has been filed. Therefore, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argues that this is a case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a chronological list of dates applicable this dispute has arisen. 9. This Court is, therefore, called upon to decide whether the case is barred by time as argued and whether a case of this nature should be quashed. 10. The case law cited does not exactly deal with the issues that arises before this Court. The Sarwan Singh's case AIR 1981 (SC) 1054 (supra) states that the application should be filed within the time prescribed. That was a case under it Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. clearly applies. Even Sarah Mathew's case 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 72 (SC) (supra) was dealing with the issue of the relevant date for computing limitation and whether it is the date of filing or the complaint for the date at which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, etc. Admittedly, for the offences alleged there is no specific period of limitation laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, the question is can this Court quash the proceedings on the ground of limitation. Since no period of limitation is prescribed, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argues that the petition cannot be allowed and the complaint cannot be quashed. Alternatively, he argues that after the report has come from the Forensic Expert, the complaint is filed within three years ten months and that, therefore, it is not hopelessly barred by time. 11. Guidance for the issue that arises in this case is provided by the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent himself in Japani Sahoo's case 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.) 50 (SC) : (2007) 7 SCC 394 (supra) wherein in para-16 it was held as; "At the same time, however, ground reality also cannot be ignored. Mere delay may not bar the right of the "Crown" in prosecuting "criminals". Mere delay may not bar the right of the "Crown" in prosecuting "criminals". But it also cannot be overlooked that, no person can be kept under continuous apprehension that he can be prosecuted at "any time" for "any crime" irrespective of the nature or seriousness of the offence. "People will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences." 12. Similarly, in para-19 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the report of the Joint Committee of Parliament. Para-9 point No. 2 is relevant for this case which read as; "For the purpose of peace and repose, it is necessary that an offender should not be kept under continuous apprehension that he may be prosecuted at any time particularly because with multifarious laws creating new offences many persons at some time or the other commit some crime or the other. People will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences." 13. Also in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rely upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where offences under Sections 506, 416, 415 and 420 IPC have been described as applicable. The Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also discussed about Sections 415 and 420 IPC. Ultimately, in paragraph 24 it has been held as follows: "In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed." 14. This Court also notices that the complainant, her father and other had knowledge of this letter being an alleged forgery by the date the plaint was filed. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of Court and is liable to be quashed." 14. This Court also notices that the complainant, her father and other had knowledge of this letter being an alleged forgery by the date the plaint was filed. The plaint was filed in 2001. In that plaint itself, it is clearly averred that letter said to have been executed by Vidhya Sagar prior to the sale deed, dated 28-03-2001 is a forgery. Para-7 contains clear averments about this letter. The written statement filed clearly mentions the letter, dated 29-01-1998, which was also expressly denied by amending the plaint once again and adding para-7(b). This para-7(b) after amended plaint is as per the orders passed in I.A. No. 451 of 2006, which was ultimately allowed on 01-07-2008. Therefore, even if it is argue that the date of the letter was not mentioned in original plaint, which was filed in 2001 still it is clear that after the written statement was filed in 2002, the petitioner has moved an application in I.A. No. 451 of 2006 to amend the plaint. They have expressly and clearly taken the stand that the letter, dated 29-01-1998 is a forged letter and this is an exact consonance to the earlier pleading in paragraph-7 (in the plaint). 15. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that although, no specific period of limitation is provided for an offence under Section 420 IPC, etc., still the application has to be filed within the reasonable period of time. The findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent are very appropriate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no person can be kept under continuous apprehension that he can be prosecuted at "any time". The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that "people will have no peace of mind if there is no period of limitation even for petty offences." In the Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph-24, the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the complaint is filed six years after the date of alleged transaction and three years after filing of the suit. 16. 16. In addition, this Court also notices that a Court of competent jurisdiction is already seized of the issue of the alleged forgery. The opinion expressed by an expert which is mentioned in the complaint is not filed by ether party in this proceedings. Irrespective of the same, as per the settled on the subject, the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert is merely a piece of evidence and it is yet to be tested and found true. The complainant, who has already be taken a firm stand in the plaint filed in 2001 that the letter is forged, fabricated not acted upon; not signed by Vidhya Sagar, etc., cannot now fall back upon the report of the expert and say that no delay has occurred. 17. Therefore, this Court holds that the application filed is barred by time. Continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019 held that the complaint filed six years after the date of the alleged transaction and three years after filing of the suit alleging the offences under Sections 415 and 420 IPC is without merits. 18. This Court also holds that this is purely a civil dispute. The letter of 1998 has lead to subsequent land transactions and whether the said transactions are valid or not is being decided by a Court of Competent civil jurisdiction. The validity of the said letter is thus squarely before the civil Court. The tendency to cloak a civil dispute with criminality has been commented upon adversely in many judgments by the Apex Court. 19. Therefore, on both these grounds (a) that a civil case that has been converted into criminal action and (b) a petition is filed more than 17 years after the knowledge of that letter, the criminal petition is liable to be allowed. 20. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 105 of 2019 on the file of Challapalli Police Station, Krishna District, are hereby quashed. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.