Telangana High Court
Lingala Venkatesh Goud And 5 Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 17 April, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1581 of 2022
O R D E R:
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking to quash the proceedings against
them in C.C.No.14 of 2022 on the file of the learned XXI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Cyberabat at
Ranga Reddy District registered for the offences under
Sections 120(B), 468, 471, 420, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for
short ‘IPC‘).
02. Heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 and Mrs.S.Madhavi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for State-respondent No.1 as well
as Mr.M.Rathan Singh, learned counsel for the unofficial
respondent No.2 and perused the record.
03. Brief facts of the case are that on 01.07.2020 at
11.00 hours, the complainant filed a complaint stating that the
children of the complainant are having 200 square yards of
property bearing Plot No.60 at Bahadurpalli vide documents
No.3530 and 3531, which was purchased in the year 2002.
The petitioner No.1 is the brother of the complainant.
Petitioner No.1 colluded with other family members i.e.
2
petitioner Nos.2 to 6 hatched a plan to grab the above said
property and created fabricated agreement of sale forging the
signatures of complainant and her husband. By virtue of the
said agreement of sale, a civil suit has been filed before the
Civil Court and the petitioner No.1 had obtained injunction
order and sent a copy of the said injunction order to the
complainant, for which, the complainant questioned the acts of
the petitioners and the petitioners have abused and assaulted
the respondent No.2. Thereby, she filed the present complaint
seeking necessary action against the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 to 6.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are nothing to do with the alleged offences. He
further submits that a civil dispute between the parties to this
criminal petition vide O.S.No.287 of 2019 on the file of learned
XVI Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at Malkajgiri
pending for adjudication. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6
and respondent No.2 belongs to one family. All the allegations
levelled against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 appear to
be civil in nature. The respondent No.2 is trying to give
criminal colour to the civil dispute. The contents of FIR or
charge sheet do not disclose the required essential ingredients
3
for constituting the alleged offences 120(B), 468, 471, 420, 506
of IPC. While seeking for quashment of the criminal
proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon
a decision in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and others etc. v.
State of Gujarat and another etc. 1 wherein the Honourable
Supreme Court of India at Paragraph No.18 held that:
“18. Be that as it may, in the Summary Suit
No.105/2015, leave to defend was granted to
respondent No.2-Mahendrakumar on 19.04.2016.
On the application filed by appellant No.3 in the said
Summary Suit No.105/2015, four receipts filed in the
suit were sent to the handwriting expert. The
handwriting expert has opined that signatures in all
the four receipts did not tally with the sample
signatures which were of respondent No.2-
Mahendrakumar. It was only thereafter, complaint
was filed by Mahendrakumar, based on which, FIR
No.I-194/2016 was registered on 28.12.2016 against
the appellants for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 IPC.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
appellants, in the Summary Suit No.105/2015, issue
No.5 has been framed by the Court “whether the
defendant proved that the plaintiff has fabricated the
forged signature illegally and created forged
receipts”. When the issue as to the genuineness of
the receipts is pending consideration in the civil suit,
in our view, the FIR ought not to have been allowed
to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the
parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit.”
1
2020 LawSuit(SC) 140
4
05. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 as well as the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the State contended there are triable issues and
factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it
is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the
petitioners at this juncture and the matter is to be decided after
conducting full-fledged trial by the trial Court and prayed to
dismiss this Criminal Petition.
06. This Court has taken note of the submissions made
by the learned counsel for either side. It is apparent on the
face of the record that the subject property was not in the name
of the respondent No.2 or her husband. As per the version of
the respondent No.2 itself, the property belongs to her children
who are majors.
07. A perusal of the alleged agreement of sale dated
10.04.2019 discloses it was executed between the respondent
No.2 & her husband as ‘vendors’ and the petitioner-accused
No.1 as ‘vendee’. When admittedly, the subject property
stands in the name of children of the complainant, it is not
explained as to how the respondent No.2 and her husband,
5
and the petitioner-accused No.1 can enter into an agreement of
sale.
08. On a careful scrutiny of the contents of the charge
sheet discloses that there are previous family disputes between
the parties. The alleged agreement of sale appears to be
executed in the presence of two witnesses. To prove the
veracity of the said Agreement of Sale, the Police did not
examine or record the statements of the witnesses of
Agreement of Sale. The said lacuna in the investigation is fatal
to the case of the respondent No.2.
09. Admittedly, a civil suit seeking specific performance
of the said Agreement of Sale vide O.S.No.287 of 2019 on the
file of learned XVI Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy
District at Malkajgiri is pending between the respondent No.2
and the petitioner No.1. When the issue with regard to the
genuineness of the said Agreement of Sale is pending for
consideration in the civil suit, the same can be ascertained by
way of adducing cogent oral and documentary evidence before
the Civil Court.
10. Except stating that the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to
6 have abused and assaulted the complainant and her family,
6
there are no specific instances or descriptive particulars as to
in what manner the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 have
abused and assaulted them. Moreover, there is no allegation
of common intention among the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6
with regard to the alleged offences. The respondent No.2 is
the sister of the petitioner-accused No.1. It is an undisputed
fact that there are previous family disputes between the
respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.1. Therefore, it appears
that the entire family members of the accused No.1 were
implicated, only to settle the personal scores of the respondent
No.2.
11. On a careful scrutiny of entire charge sheet
averments, to prove the basic allegations against the
petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 for the alleged offences, there is
no single independent witness examined by the Police. Out of
nine list of witnesses cited, four witnesses are complainant and
her family members, who are interested witnesses. Remaining
five witnesses are panch and official witnesses. As observed
supra, the two witnesses to the alleged Agreement of Sale
were not examined by the Police which amount to a grave
discrepancy in the case of the prosecution.
7
12. In State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and others 2 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:
“In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under
Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following
categories of cases are given 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
guide 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 F.I.R. 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;
2
1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335
8
(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.”
13. In the present case on hand, as observed supra, the
subject property is not in the name of the complainant and her
husband. There is no direct witness to the occurrence of the
alleged offences. All the allegations appear to be vague and
general in nature and without proper evidence. Admittedly, a
civil suit filed seeking specific performance of the said
Agreement of Sale is pending between the parties to the
criminal petition. The genuineness of the said Agreement of
Sale can be adjudicated by the competent jurisdictional Civil
Court. There is no proper and cogent evidence collected in
support of the allegations levelled against the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 to 6. Admittedly, there are previous family
9
disputes between the respondent No.2 and the petitioner-
accused No.1. Therefore, the present case falls within the
ambit and parameters of point No.7 formulated in Ch.Bhajan
Lal‘s case cited supra. Therefore, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to
6 amounts to abuse of process of law and the same are liable
to be quashed.
14. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the
proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 6 in
C.C.No.14 of 2022 on the file of the learned XXI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Cyberabat at Ranga Reddy
District, are hereby quashed.
__________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 17-APR-2025
KSK/KHRM
[ad_1]
Source link