Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1345 (AP)

M. Venkatasubba Reddy v. State of A. P.

2024-09-23

V.SUJATHA

body2024
ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupati against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 506, 120(B) of the IPC. The said private complaint was referred to Police and after due investigation the crime was registered vide Crime No.178 of 2014 dated 26.06.2014. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.205 of 2015, which is under challenge before this Court. 2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that on 06.11.2012 he has purchased a property situated in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue village accounts of Ullipatteda of M.R.Palle Panchayat admeasuring an extent of 302.69 square yards for a valid consideration of Rs.16,65,000/- from his lawful vendors namely Bachala Jayamma, W/o Peddamuni Reddy, B. Rojamba, W/o B. Yogananda Reddy, B. Mukhesh Reddy, S/o B. Rojamba, B. Lakshman Reddy, S/o B. Pedda Muni Reddy, B. Devi, W/o B. Lakshman Reddy, B. Madhusekhar Reddy, S/o B. Jayamma, B. Manjula, W/o B. Madhusekhar Reddy under a registered sale deed, vide document No.5412 of 2012, dated 06.11.2012 at S.R.O., Tirupati Urban. 3. Originally, the said property belonged to one B. Pedda Muni Reddy, S/o P. Muni Reddy, who became the owners of the land in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue Village of an extent of Ac.1.75 cents as per compromise decree in O.S.No.7 of 1973 on the file of the Hon’ble Sub-Court, Tirupati by the Hathiramji Mutt. The then Assistant Commissioner of Hathiramji Mutt vide proceedings in Roc.No.1509/1981-A, dated 05.05.1983 issued directions to the Tahsildar, Chandragiri to transfer the pattas in the name of the enjoyers. As per the said proceedings, B. Pedda Muni Reddy being one of the enjoyer was granted a patta in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue Village accounts for an extent of Ac.1.75 cents situated at Ullipatteda. By virtue of the said patta the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy became the absolute owner and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property after duly taking possession of the same. During his lifetime, the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy made alienations and settlements by exercising his absolute rights over the said land. 4. By virtue of the said patta the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy became the absolute owner and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property after duly taking possession of the same. During his lifetime, the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy made alienations and settlements by exercising his absolute rights over the said land. 4. After the demise of the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy, on 06.11.2012 his legal heirs i.e., B. Jayamma, W/o B. Pedda Muni Reddy having succeeded and in possession and enjoyment of the same executed a registered sale deed pertaining to the schedule mentioned property i.e., in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue Village accounts of Ullipatteda area for an extent of 302.69 square yards for an amount of Rs.16,65,000/- by duly delivering the possession on the same day to the complainant. While the matter being so, the complainant i.e., the 2nd respondent herein came to know that the petitioners herein having colluded together have created a sham and fraudulent document as if it was executed by the son of B. Pedda Muni Reddy by name B. Muni Reddy in favour of Mr. M. Venkata Subba Reddy/the 1st petitioner herein on 30.09.1991 vide document No.4111 of 1991 pertaining to the property situated in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue village accounts for an extent of 0.11 cents. The 1st petitioner has thereafter fabricated the gift deed dated 25.01.1999 vide document No.255 of 1999 in favour of his daughter i.e., the 2nd petitioner herein. The complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy do not have any sons in the name of Mr. B. Muni Reddy and the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein have tried to occupy the property of the complainant by creating the documents by impersonating some unknown person in the name of B. Muni Reddy. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of Paramjeet Batra Vs. B. Muni Reddy and the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein have tried to occupy the property of the complainant by creating the documents by impersonating some unknown person in the name of B. Muni Reddy. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , wherein under similar circumstances a suit has been filed on the basis of the fabricated documents and pending the suit, criminal proceedings were initiated on the ground of forged and fabricated documents, wherein the Hon’ble Court has held that though the complainant attributes forgery and fabrication of documents to the appellant and other accused and states that the appellant has grabbed the profit of the running business and threatened Respondent No.2, it appears to be a civil dispute and in such a situation continuation of pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. 6. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. 7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : “102. 7. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows : “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners especially the document dated 30.09.1991, it can be seen that the said document was executed by one B. Muni Reddy, S/o Pedda Muni Reddy in favour of the 1st petitioner herein vide document No.4111 of 1991 and through which the 1st petitioner became the absolute owner and possessor of the said property and have been in enjoyment and possession of the same since the date of the purchase of the said property. If that is the case, the defacto complainant who is said to have been purchased the said property in the year 2012 cannot claim that the 1st petitioner herein have created a fabricated document in the name of Mr. B. Muni Reddy. If that is the case, the defacto complainant who is said to have been purchased the said property in the year 2012 cannot claim that the 1st petitioner herein have created a fabricated document in the name of Mr. B. Muni Reddy. If at all that is the case of the defacto complainant i.e., 2nd respondent, it is for the 2nd respondent to approach the Civil Court for filing a suit seeking cancellation of document on the ground of fraud and impersonation but not the criminal proceedings as initiated by the 2nd respondent herein. 9. Even in the present case also it is an admitted fact that the 1st petitioner has purchased an extent of 0.11 cents in Sy.No.290 from one B.Muni Reddy in the year 1991 and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said property and being the absolute owner of the said property has gifted the same through a gift settlement deed in favour of his daughter, who is the 2nd petitioner herein. In such a case, the 2nd respondent who purchased the property consequentially in the year 2012, cannot claim that property document in the year 1991 was created by the 1st petitioner by way of forgery or impersonation of Mr. B. Muni Reddy. In view of the same, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but abuse of process of law. 10. In such a case, this Court feels it appropriate to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.205 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, as against the petitioners herein. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.