Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 854 (TS)

Syed Mahmood Ali v. State of Telangana

2020-12-15

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2020
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Since in all these three Criminal Petitions, the petitioners, de facto complainant are common and the allegations are almost similar, they are being disposed of by way of common order. 2. Petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') vide Crl.P. No. 4515 of 2020 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 300 of 2020 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners in the said crime are under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.') 3. The very same petitioners have filed Crl.P. No. 4516 of 2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 244 of 2020 on the file of Mahaboobnagar (R), Mahaboobnagar District. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 I.P.C. 4. The petitioners have also filed Crl.P. No. 4525 of 2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 82 of 2020 on the file of Rajapur Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C. 5. Allegations against the petitioners in Crime No. 300 of 2020 are as follows: The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the Director of "Hetch Hotels and Resorts Private Limited". According to him, the Registered Office of the said Company is at Plot No. 7/E, 8-2-293/82, F, F-11/A/7E, Road No. 6, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The de facto complainant and his wife are the Directors of the said Company. Except the de facto complainant and his wife, there is no other Director in the said company. The said Company has purchased land admeasuring Ac. 26-08 guntas in different survey numbers of Polepally Village H/o Peddapally, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under various sale deeds on different dates. 6. It is further alleged by the de facto complainant that the said Company has obtained conversion proceedings in the year 2007 itself converting the said land from agriculture to non-agriculture. The said properties were kept intact and in fact, the Company was not working and the properties were lying in the name of the said Company. The name of the said Company was struck off by the Government of India on 21.07.2017 itself. 7. The said properties were kept intact and in fact, the Company was not working and the properties were lying in the name of the said Company. The name of the said Company was struck off by the Government of India on 21.07.2017 itself. 7. It is further alleged by the de facto complainant that due to some financial necessities, the de facto complainant was intending to sell the said properties of the Company, he has obtained Encumbrance Certificate on 08.05.2020 and came to know the fraud played by the petitioners herein in collusion with other accused. The petitioners herein have forged the signatures of the de facto complainant and his wife and created Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, which is a forged Resolution. The petitioners herein by virtue of forged Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, given authorization to the 1st petitioner to deal with all the properties of the said Company claiming that he is the Manager of the said Company. According to him, the de facto complainant and his wife have not signed the alleged Resolution, dated 03.12.2018 and the said Resolution was forged by the petitioners. The Company address also wrongly mentioned. The petitioners in active connivance with other accused, created General Power of Attorneys vide Document bearing Nos. 3233/2019 and 3235/2019, both dated 08.02.2019, which were executed in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein, who is own brother of de facto complainant and the 2nd petitioner knows very well that the said Company has not passed any Resolution and no authorization was given to the 1st petitioner. Thus, the petitioners herein, in collusion with other accused, have created the Resolution, dated 03.12.2018 and executed the above said General Power Attorneys for wrongful gains. It is further alleged in the complaint, dated 22.05.2020, that the petitioners in active connivance with other accused, have formed a syndicate, created so many Registered Sale Deeds and AGPA's and stood as beneficiaries to the documents for their illegal gains and the petitioners herein have committed cheating and criminal breach of trust. 8. Allegations against the petitioners in Crime No. 244 of 2020 are as follows: The de facto complainant is the Director of "Sah Industries (India) Limited" and the Registered Office of the said Company is at Survey No. 630/A, Plot No. 2 and 3, Lal Bangla, Peddapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 8. Allegations against the petitioners in Crime No. 244 of 2020 are as follows: The de facto complainant is the Director of "Sah Industries (India) Limited" and the Registered Office of the said Company is at Survey No. 630/A, Plot No. 2 and 3, Lal Bangla, Peddapally Village, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. The said Company, represented by the de facto complainant, Managing Director, has purchased lands admeasuring Ac. 16-39 guntas in different survey numbers of Karoor Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, under various Sale Deeds in year 2007. The allegations in Crime No. 244 of 2020 are almost similar to the allegations against the petitioners in Crime No. 300 of 2020. In the present crime also, the Company has obtained conversation proceedings, the company name was struck down. There are allegations of creation of resolution dated 03.12.2018 by forging the signatures of the de facto complainant and Mr. Devaguptapu Veera Venkata Subramanya Narayan, another Director of the said company. It is further alleged that the 1st petitioner conspiring with the 2nd petitioner, who is own brother of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, have created eight (8) registered General Power of Attorneys, which were executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner. It is further alleged that the 2nd petitioner, who is brother of the de facto complainant, knows very well that the said Company has not passed any resolution and did not give any authorization to the 1st petitioner herein. The 2nd petitioner has submitted resignation to his Directorship of the said company on 10.12.2020 itself. Thus, the petitioners have forged the signatures of the de facto complainant and another Director of the Company and executed five (5) Registered Sale Deeds. 9. Allegations against the petitioners in Crime No. 82 of 2020 are as under: Similar allegations were made in the present complaint in Crime No. 82 of 2020. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the Director of "Sah Industries (India) Limited." The said Company has purchased huge extent of land admeasuring Ac. 69.16 guntas, situated at Thirumalapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under various Registered Sale Deeds on different dates in 2007, the details of the same were mentioned in the complaint. Other allegations are almost similar except the details of the property. 10. Contentions of Petitioners in all the three Criminal Petitions: The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is a habitual offender. 69.16 guntas, situated at Thirumalapur Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under various Registered Sale Deeds on different dates in 2007, the details of the same were mentioned in the complaint. Other allegations are almost similar except the details of the property. 10. Contentions of Petitioners in all the three Criminal Petitions: The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is a habitual offender. He is an accused in C.C. Nos. 470 and 475 of 2010; 473, 474 and 478 of 2019. The de facto complainant is Director of "Hetch Hotels and Resorts Private Limited". Being Director of the said Company, he is responsible for managing the affairs of the said Company. The de facto complainant has committed fraud and cheated with the customers. Several complaints were filed against him with Chadarghat Police Station, Hyderabad. Thus, the de facto complainant is a habitual offender and absconding for the last many years. Petitioners never forged the signatures of the de facto complainant, never created any document and thus, they have not committed the offences alleged against them. The 2nd respondent, being the close relative of the petitioners herein, have filed the present complaints with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners herein. 11. The petitioners herein have not received any amount and therefore, the question of committing cheating and criminal breach of trust by the petitioners does not arise. The 2nd respondent, being Director of the said Company, is not having locus standi to lodge the present complaint, dated 22.05.2020, and there should be authorization or Board Resolution authorizing him to lodge the present complaint by the said Company. Therefore, the present complaints lodged by the 2nd respondent are not maintainable. The Registered General Power of Attorney bearing Document bearing No. 20773 of 2019 was cancelled by way of execution of Deed of Cancellation of General Power of Attorney vide Document bearing No. 7258 of 2020, dated 06.06.2020. Thus, there is no cheating at all. The said General Power of Attorney, dated 10.12.2019 and the said cancellation of General Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 7258 of 2020 were filed. Copies of Encumbrance Certificates were also filed. General Power of Attorneys bearing Document Nos. 29497/2019, dated 10.12.2019, 1615/2020, dated 24.12.2019, 3234/2019, dated 05.02.2019 and 1616/2020, dated 24.12.2019 were cancelled by way of execution of Cancellation of General Power of Attorneys vide Document bearing Nos. 9265/2020, 9266/2020, 9264/2020 and 9267/2020, all are dated 06.06.2020. Copies of Encumbrance Certificates were also filed. General Power of Attorneys bearing Document Nos. 29497/2019, dated 10.12.2019, 1615/2020, dated 24.12.2019, 3234/2019, dated 05.02.2019 and 1616/2020, dated 24.12.2019 were cancelled by way of execution of Cancellation of General Power of Attorneys vide Document bearing Nos. 9265/2020, 9266/2020, 9264/2020 and 9267/2020, all are dated 06.06.2020. The de facto complainant has received amounts from the petitioners herein towards sale consideration. In proof of the same, bank statements were filed. Copies of said bank statements, General Power of Attorneys and cancellation of General Power of Attorneys were filed to show that amounts were paid to the de facto complainant herein. 12. Contentions of 2nd respondent: The petitioners have forged the signatures of the de facto complainant, his wife, another Director and have created Board Resolution, dated 03.12.2018. The name of the said Company was struck down on 21.07.2017 itself and therefore, the question of passing Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, by the said Company does not arise. Pursuant to the said created Board Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, the petitioners herein in active connivance with other accused, have created several documents including Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorneys, Sale Deeds, General Power of Attorneys and sold the property of above said two Companies for wrongful gains. Thus, the petitioners have cheated the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. 13. The 2nd respondent, being Director of the said Companies, lodged the complaint in the name of the said Company, represented by him as Director of the said Company. Any individual can set the criminal law into motion. The Judgments relied upon by the petitioners are in respect of special enactments. The 2nd petitioner has submitted resignation in the year 2010 itself and he, being brother of 2nd respondent, is very well aware of names of above said Companies, which were struck down in the year 2017 itself and said Companies have not passed any Board Resolution. Thus, the petitioners herein in active connivance with each other, have created Board Resolution, dated 03.12.2018 and other documents and sold out the properties of the above said two Companies with a mala fide intention for wrongful gains and to cheat the 2nd respondent herein. Thus, they have committed criminal breach of trust. 14. Contentions of learned Public Prosecutor: There are several aspects, which are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer in all the above said three crimes. The investigation is pending. Thus, they have committed criminal breach of trust. 14. Contentions of learned Public Prosecutor: There are several aspects, which are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer in all the above said three crimes. The investigation is pending. The signatures of the de facto complainant are to be obtained for the purpose of sending the same to obtain F.S.L. report. 15. The above stated facts would reveal that the 1st petitioner i.e., Syed Mohmood Ali @ Siddiq S/o Ayed Ahmed Ali, is the brother-in-law, 2nd petitioner i.e., Syed Abdul Azeem s/o Syed Rashed Ali, is brother of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. Even according to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the 2nd petitioner is Director of said "Sah Industries (India) Limited." According to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd petitioner has submitted resignation on 10.12.2010 itself. The above said disputes pertain to the above said two Companies i.e., "Sah Industries (India) Limited" and "Hetch Hotels and Resorts Private Limited." The said Companies have purchased huge extent of lands as specifically mentioned in the above said three complaints. 16. It is not in dispute that the names of said Companies were struck down by the Government of India on 21.07.2017 for non-submission of returns. There are several aspects, which are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer, which reads thus: (i) The date of resignation of 2nd petitioner as Director of "Sah Industries (India) Limited." (ii) Date of submission of Form-XXXII by the 2nd petitioner, submitting his resignation as Director by the said Company with the Registrar of Companies (iii) Whether any money was transferred to the account of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, if so, the details of money transferred? (iv) Whether the 2nd respondent has received any consideration from the petitioners and also prospective purchasers of the said Company? (v) Whether the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is a habitual offender and whether he has involved in any case, as alleged by the petitioners including the cases vide C.C. Nos. 470 and 475 of 2010; 473, 474 and 478 of 2019? (vi) Extent of land and alleged forgery of signatures of the 2nd respondent, his wife and another Director has to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer by sending the signatures of the 2nd respondent, his wife and another Director to F.S.L. and the report of F.S.L. has to be obtained. 17. (vi) Extent of land and alleged forgery of signatures of the 2nd respondent, his wife and another Director has to be ascertained by the Investigating Officer by sending the signatures of the 2nd respondent, his wife and another Director to F.S.L. and the report of F.S.L. has to be obtained. 17. Admittedly, the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are close relatives. The disputes are with regard to the properties of the above said two Companies i.e., "Sah Industries (India) Limited" and "Hetch Hotels and Resorts Private Limited." According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent has received huge amounts from the petitioners and prospective purchasers and in proof of the same, they have filed bank statements. The de facto complainant has lodged three (03) complaints in three (03) different police stations. The allegations in all the three complaints are almost similar. There is no explanation by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with regard to lodging of above said three complaints on the file of Rajapur Police Station, Mahaboobnagar, Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad, and Mahaboobnagar Rural Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District. 18. As stated above, the allegations in the said complaints are similar in nature. The main allegation is with regard to forgery of signatures of the 2nd respondent, his wife and another Director of above said Companies. According to the petitioners herein, they have created the Board Resolution, dated 03.12.2018 of the said companies by forging the signatures of the de facto complainant and another Director and with the said forged Board Resolution the petitioners herein have created registered General Power Attorneys, Registered Sale Deeds and also Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorneys. Thus, the allegations are almost similar. Even then, the 2nd respondent has submitted three complaints in three different police stations. Thus, there is no explanation much less the plausible explanation by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant for lodging the above said three complaints in three different police stations. 19. The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant has lodged the said three complainants in his individual capacity alleging that he is Director of the above said two Companies. The petitioners herein have forged his signature and also the signatures of his wife and another Director. By virtue of the said Board Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, the petitioners and others have created the above said documents and sold the properties of the above said Companies. The petitioners herein have forged his signature and also the signatures of his wife and another Director. By virtue of the said Board Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, the petitioners and others have created the above said documents and sold the properties of the above said Companies. Thus, the petitioners have cheated the 2nd respondent and they have committed criminal breach of trust. The 2nd respondent has not lodged the complaint on behalf of the company. Therefore, there is no need of any authorization or Board Resolution of the above said Companies. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there is no Board Resolution and the 2nd respondent cannot represent the said two Companies, and as such the above said three complaints registered on the complaints lodged by the 2nd respondent are not maintainable, is not sustainable. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that any individual can set the criminal law into motion. 20. As stated above, there are several factual aspects, which are to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. At the cost of repetition as discussed supra, the disputes are with regard to properties of the above said two Companies sold by the petitioners, which are civil in nature. According to the petitioners, the General Power of Attorneys, which were cancelled by way of Execution of Registered Deeds of Cancellation of General Power of Attorneys, the petitioners have not received any consideration and in proof of the same, the petitioners herein have filed bank statements. 21. The Apex Court in a recent judgment in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra (2019) 14 SCC 350 held that quashing criminal proceedings was called for only in a case where complaint did not disclose any offence, or was frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If allegations set out in complaint did not constitute offence of which cognizance had been taken by Magistrate, it was open to High Court to quash same. It was not necessary that, a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. If it appeared on a reading of complaint and consideration of allegations therein, in light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for High Court to interfere. The defences that might be available, or facts/aspects which when established during trial, might lead to acquittal, were not grounds for quashing complaint at threshold. At that stage, only question relevant was whether averments in complaint spell out ingredients of a criminal offence or not. The Court has to consider whether complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that were alleged against Respondents. Correctness or otherwise of said allegations had to be decided only in trial. At initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 6. In view of the above said authoritative pronouncement of law, coming to the facts of the case on hand, the complaint dated 23.06.2018 would disclose that prima facie allegations are levelled against the petitioners by the de facto complainant. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided by the Investigating Officer and the trial Court during trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it was not open to Courts to stifle proceedings by entering into merits of the contentions made on behalf of Accused. Criminal complaints could not be quashed only on ground that, allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against Accused were prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 22. A perusal of bank statements would reveal that the amounts were transferred into the Bank account of the 2nd respondent, which is not disputed by the 2nd respondent. But, according to the 2nd respondent, he has received the said amounts for some other purpose. The said amounts were transferred on different dates including, dated 29.06.2019, 02.07.2019, 27.07.2019 and 12.03.2019 and other dates. The amounts transferred bank accounts etc. are specifically mentioned in the bank statements. 23. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation is pending. But, according to the 2nd respondent, he has received the said amounts for some other purpose. The said amounts were transferred on different dates including, dated 29.06.2019, 02.07.2019, 27.07.2019 and 12.03.2019 and other dates. The amounts transferred bank accounts etc. are specifically mentioned in the bank statements. 23. According to learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation is pending. The signatures of the 2nd respondent, his wife and another Director have to be obtained and have to be sent to F.S.L. for obtaining expert opinion. 24. The above stated facts would reveal that the dispute between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent is with regard to the properties of the above said Companies. Petitioners and 2nd respondent are close relatives. The above said documents were executed in the year 2019 itself. Whether the 2nd respondent has received consideration from the petitioners and prospective purchasers of the plots is a matter to be investigated into by the Investigating Officer. 25. Considering the above said facts and also the fact that punishment for the offences alleged against the petitioners herein are seven years and below seven years, all the above said three Criminal Petitions are disposed of directing the Investigating Officer in Crime Nos. 244, 300 and 82 of 2020 to strictly follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and also adhere to the guidelines formulated by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another. The Investigating Officers are further directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation and filing of final reports in all the above said three crimes. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these three criminal petitions shall stand closed.