Telangana High Court
M. Lakshma Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 24 December, 2021Bench: K.Lakshman
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PTITION No.1973 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section – 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in Crime No.80 of
2021 of Patancheru Police Station, Sanga Reddy District.
2. The petitioner herein is sole accused in the aforesaid crime.
The offences alleged against him are under Sections – 465, 468, 471, 420,
406 and 506 of IPC.
3. Respondent No.2 herein has filed a complaint under Section –
200 of the Cr.P.C. and the same was referred to Patancheru Police Station
under Section – 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. who in turn registered the aforesaid
crime.
4. The contents of the complaint are as follows:
i) Mohd. Qutubuddin is great grand-father of respondent No.2.
ii) Great grand-father of respondent No.2 is original owner of total
land admeasuring As.13-24 guntas in Survey Nos.114, 115, 121, 122,
136, 137, 139 and 149, situated at Patancheru Village and Mandal having
purchased through registered Muntakhab No.174 of 1296 Fasli.
iii) After the death of Mohd. Qutubuddin, the aforesaid property
was devolved upon his son, Mohd. Hassanuddin, and again after the
death of Mohd. Hassanuddin, it devolved upon Mohd. Munawaruddin.
iv) Respondent No.2 and his siblings are the grand children of
Mohd. Munawaruddin.
2
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
v) The father of petitioner, late M. Narayana Reddy, encroached
the aforesaid property for wrongful gains.
vi) During the life time of father of petitioner filed a suit stating
that he is the tenant of the aforesaid property, but during the proceedings
he admitted that he was the encroacher of the said property and later on
he filed a case under Inams Abolishment Act vide file No.G/13469/1969
and another case vide file No.G/11097/1975 and that both the said cases
were dismissed.
vii) Thereafter, the petitioner and his father created some false and
fictitious record to grab the aforesaid property and based on such false
documents, the petitioner and his father obtained Occupancy Rights
Certificate (ORC) in the name of father of the petitioner.
viii) The fictitious document obtained by the accused is document
No.B4/794/1980, which is actually pertains to Zaherabad Mandal as per
the Distribution Register of file No.A5/5323/1979 and the petitioner
showing the said document as pertaining to the aforesaid property of
Patancheru and by using the same, he got obtained ORC and sold the said
property to third parties. Thus, the petitioner and his father not only
cheated respondent No.2, but also to the real owners and the Revenue
Department by creating false documents.
ix) After coming to know about the cheating of the petitioner and
his father, respondent No.2 approached the police, but in vain and,
therefore, he filed a private complaint under Section – 200 of Cr.P.C.
3
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
5. Heard Mrs. Y. L. Siva Kalpana Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1 and Mr.Harsh Asthana, learned counsel representing
Mr. Rakesh Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. Perusal of the record would reveal that there are disputes
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 with regard to aforesaid
property. It further reveal that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga
Reddy, has issued ORC dated 12.02.1982 in favour of the father of the
petitioner i.e., Mr. Middela Narayana Reddy basing on the judgment and
decree dated 25.02.1972 in O.S.No.20 of 1969 passed by the learned
Munsif Magistrate upheld by this Court in S.A. No.386 of 1974 dated
15.12.1975. In the judgment dated 15.12.1975 in S.A. No.386 of 1974,
there is specific mention that the father of the petitioner is in possession
of the property. Vide order dated 18.02.2021, the learned Special
Tribunal, Sanga Reddy District in Old Case No.A3/2488/2013, held that
since there is a civil case filed in O.S. No.57 of 2019 before the Principal
District Senior Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy on the subject lands, the
Tribunal is nothing to deal with the matter when a suit is pending before
the Civil Court. On the application submitted by the father of respondent
No.2, the District Collector, Medak District at Sanga Reddy vide
endorsement dated 24.09.2013 mentioned that the request of the father of
respondent No.2 for correction of entries in Revenue Records in respect
of the aforesaid survey numbers is not considerable at this level since
ORC was already issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the year
1980 and, therefore, advised him to approach the Civil Court. A similar
4
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
endorsement was given on 27.02.2015. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and
others have filed a suit vide O.S. No.57 of 2019 against the petitioner
herein and others seeking to declare the plaintiffs as absolute title holders
and owners of the subject property, recovery of possession by putting the
plaintiffs in physical possession and declare the ORC issued in file
No.B4-794/inam/80, dated 12.02.1982 on the file of the RDO, Sanga
Reddy as null and void and to direct the defendant Nos.20 to 23 to
correct the entries. The said suit is pending. During the pendency of the
said suit, respondent No.2 herein has filed a complaint under Section –
200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class
(Special Mobile Court) – cum – II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Sanga
Reddy, and the learned Magistrate has passed the following order on
12.01.2021:
“After perusing the petition and statements and documents I
could not find utmost prima facie material, hence this case is
to be investigated therefore refer the case to P.S. Patancheru
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report at
request of petitioner.”
7. Referring to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would submit that the learned Magistrate having not satisfied with the
statements and documents prima facie, erred in referring the matter to the
police for investigation under Section – 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. Whereas, the
learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the petitioner
herein is not a protected tenant and he has created and fabricated the
documents and he is contesting the suit. According to him, some
fictitious documents were interpolated in the revenue records of the
5
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
Revenue Divisional Officer – cum – Inams Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the
certified copy of the disputed Occupancy Rights dated 12.02.1982 filed
by the petitioner in O.S. No.57 of 2019 which is inadmissible secondary
evidence, unless and until the entire original file bearing
No.B4/794Inam/80, dated 12.02.1982 is not produced before the Court
and is subjected to Forensic examination during the course of
investigation. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon
the principle laid down in Sajana Granites, Madras v. Manduva
Srinivasa Rao1; Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah2;
Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal3; M. Krishnan v. Vijay
Singh4; Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiah5; and P.
Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana alias Hari Babu6.
8. The above stated facts would reveal that respondent No.2 and
others have filed the above suit – O.S. No.57 of 2019 in the month of
March, 2019 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession of the
subject property and also to correct the entries in revenue record in
respect of the subject land and also to direct defendant Nos.20 to 23 to
enter and maintain the names of the plaintiffs as pattadar and owner of
the suit schedule property and also to declare the ORC in file
No.B4/794/Inam/80, dated 12.02.1982 issued by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Sanga Reddy and sale deeds bearing No.3066 of 1982, dated
29.06.1982, No.2829 of 1983, dated 01.09.198, No.2830 of 1983, dated
1
. 2002 (1) ALT 466 (DB)
2
. AIR 2005 SC 2119
3
. AIR 2001 SC 3846
4
. AIR 2001 SC 3014
5
. 2002 (9) SCC 581
6
. AIR 2008 SC 1884
6
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
01.09.198, No.1901 of 1988, dated 31.03.1988, No.7387 of 2010, dated
31.07.2010 and No.14292 of 2017, dated 13.07.2017 as null and void.
Thus, respondent No.2 and others have sought to declare the ORC as
illegal and also the above said sale deeds as illegal. During the pendency
of the said suit, without waiting for the outcome of the said suit,
respondent No.2 has filed a complaint under Section – 200 of Cr.P.C.
with regard to the very same allegations. The learned Magistrate having
found that perusal of the contents of the complaint and the documents it
could not find utmost prima facie material and hence the case has to be
investigated and referred the complaint to the police for investigation.
Thus, respondent No.2 is trying to criminalize the civil proceedings.
9. Perusal of the record would further reveal that the said ORC
was issued on 12.02.1982 and the father of respondent No.2 has
requested the Revenue Authorities to correct the revenue entries after
elapse of 21 years. After elapse of about five years, respondent No.2 and
others have filed the above suit. A perusal of the complaint under
Section – 200 of Cr.P.C. would reveal that there are no allegations with
regard to breach of trust and forgery. Admittedly, the said suit is
pending. The validity /genuinety of the ORC have to be decided by the
Principal District Court, Medak at Sangareddy in O.S. No.57 of 2019.
The learned Magistrate having held that perusal of petition averments
and documents, it could not find prima facie material, erred in referring
the matter to the police for investigation and the police in turn registered
a case in Crime No.80 of 2021.
7
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
10. As discussed above, there are no allegations of criminal breach
of trust and forgery in the entire complaint. The disputes between the
petitioner and respondent No.2 are civil in nature. The petitioner herein
is defendant No.7 in the suit O.S. No.57 of 2019.
11. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal7, the Apex Court laid
down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section
– 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
“(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.
7
. (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
8
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
(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 Act
concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.”
12. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited8, the
Apex Court held that “while on the issue, it is necessary to take notice of
a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes
into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent
impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is
seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down
of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is likelihood of
imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
8
. (2006) 6 SCC 736
9
KL,J
Crl.P. No.1973 of 2021
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through
criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
13. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that this case is
squarely falls in one of the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal7. In M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra9 the Apex Court held that this
Court is having power to grant protection under Section – 482 of
Cr.P.C.by assigning reasons.
14. In view of the above said principle and also the discussion, the
disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 are civil in nature.
A suit vide O.S. No.57 of 2019 is pending with regard to the very same
allegations. Therefore, the proceedings in Crime No.80 of 2021 of
Patancheru Police Station cannot go on and accordingly, the same are
quashed.
15. The present Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the
criminal petition shall stand closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
24th December, 2021
Mgr
9
. AIR 2021 SC 1918
Comments