Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1602 (TS)

Chintakindi Anjaiah v. State of Telangana

2025-11-21

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.103 of 2024 on the file of Choutuppal Town Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel representing Smt. B. Lakshmi Kanaka Valli, learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature and that the suit filed by the de facto complainant got dismissed and thus, has come up with the false case against the petitioners herein through this complaint and that there is no truth in the allegations that the petitioners have executed a fake registered sale deed in favour of Chinthakindi Ramulamma- petitioner No.2 herein by impersonating the de facto complainant. She further submitted that the petitioners never committed any such impersonation or act of forgery and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the police have already issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., to the petitioners and submitted the documents to the FSL and that the expert opinion is awaited. 5. Perused the record. 6. The case of the de facto complainant is that the accused and the de facto complainant jointly purchased the agricultural land at Choutappal Revenue Village through the registered sale deed bearing No.149/81 dated 04.02.1981. Since the date of purchase, the de facto complainant is regularly visiting the land and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. When he visited the land on 05.02.2024, he found some changes in the land and learnt through some local people that some new persons were visiting the said land. Therefore, growing suspicious, he verified Encumbrance Certificate and could notice that the accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 made conspiracy and got executed a fake registered sale deed in favour of accused No.2 by impersonating the de facto complainant, fixing his photograph on the said sale deed. Thus, the allegations point out the prima facie case against the petitioners. Therefore, growing suspicious, he verified Encumbrance Certificate and could notice that the accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 made conspiracy and got executed a fake registered sale deed in favour of accused No.2 by impersonating the de facto complainant, fixing his photograph on the said sale deed. Thus, the allegations point out the prima facie case against the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the matter is purely of civil nature, but since the prime allegation is with regard to impersonation and execution of a fake registered sale deed, a criminal element exists prima facie and whenever there is a criminal element, institution of criminal proceedings is not barred. 7. In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712 it was held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the complaint is bereft of any affidavit and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2015) 6 SCC 287 . 9. In Priyanaka Srivastava ’s case (2 supra) it was held that: “In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 10. In Smt. Mithlesh Yadav v. State of MP and Ors. MCRC No. 54125/2021 dated 23.03.2022 , it was held that in the absence of an affidavit/certificate accompanying the complaint, the court concerned is not supposed to register the FIR. In the said case, there was no affidavit or certificate accompanying the complaint. Therefore, it was held that in the absence of the affidavit/certificate in support of complaint, Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., could not have empowered the Magistrate to pass an order of registration of alleged offence and investigation and therefore, the impugned order passed by the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gwalior, is vitiated in the eye of law and as a result, quash petition was allowed and the proceedings against the accused therein were quashed. 11. In the present case also there is no affidavit accompanying the complaint and further the Magistrate has not assigned any reasons for registration of the crime. 11. In the present case also there is no affidavit accompanying the complaint and further the Magistrate has not assigned any reasons for registration of the crime. The same is extracted hereunder: “Whereas, Complaint filed by Complainant/Yellanki Muthyalu, Accused No.1) Chinthakindhi Anjaiah, 2) Chinthakindi Ramulamma and the same is transmitted herewith. The Station House Officer, PS Choutuppal is required to register the case, investigate the matter and file report in the above matter before this Court.” 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the orders passed by this Court in the earlier criminal petition vide Crl.P. No.10001 of 2024 filed by the petitioners herein for quashing the present FIR, wherein this Court has held that the allegations do not constitute the offence under Section 467 IPC and therefore, the police were directed to invoke the proceedings under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said orders, prosecution served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the petitioners. Subsequently, Crl.P. No.2491 of 2025 was filed by the prosecution seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.MP No.585 of 2024 in the present Crime, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal. Vide said Criminal M.P., the prosecution has requested the court to issue summons to the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 to obtain their thumb impressions, sample signatures and hand writing for forwarding the same to FSL for analysis. After hearing both the parties, the trial court has partly allowed the petition directing the complainant to give his specimen thumb impression for forwarding the same to FSL. But, the relief sought against accused Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said orders, the prosecution has filed Crl.P. No.2491 of 2025 and the same was allowed by this court. Pursuant to which signatures and thumb impressions were obtained and sent to FSL and the report is awaited by the prosecution. Now the petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners alleging that the complaint is bereft of any affidavit. As discussed supra, it is a private complaint filed by the complainant without being supported by any affidavit/certificate. Thus, in view of the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastav ’s case (2 supra) and decision in Smt. Mithlesh Yadav ’s case, it is held that complaint without any affidavit, cannot be maintained. 13. As discussed supra, it is a private complaint filed by the complainant without being supported by any affidavit/certificate. Thus, in view of the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastav ’s case (2 supra) and decision in Smt. Mithlesh Yadav ’s case, it is held that complaint without any affidavit, cannot be maintained. 13. Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in FIR No.103 of 2024 on the file of Choutuppal Town Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.