Syed Shaker Khan v. The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8244 of 2015 ORDER:
The present application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings in Cr.No.316 of 2014 of Mailardevpally Police Station, Cyberabad registered initially against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC and later during the course of investigation, the investigating agency found involvement of about 11 named persons in the commission of various crimes in the city. The case of the prosecution is as under:
Shastripuram Co-operative Housing Society (Society) represented by its President lodged a report alleging that plot No.1816, which is owned by the Society admeasuring 300 square yards in Sy.No.134/20 of Meer Sagar, H/o.Mailardevpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District was never sold to its member at any time. It is alleged that the Society came to know that some persons forged, fabricated and fraudulently created a sale deed alleged to have been executed by society in their favour. It is stated that the said persons who are falsely claiming to be the owners, have constructed a compound wall claiming themselves to be the owners. When the Society asked for production of documents, they refused to show the same.
It is further submitted that a gang of persons are responsible for creating false and fabricated documents alleged to have been executed by the Society in favour of the few and usurping the society's property for their illegal gain. Hence, a report came to be filed requesting the police to investigate into the matter. Challenging the very registration of crime, the present application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of investigation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the First Information Report (F.I.R.) is silent as to the role of the petitioner in the commission of offence. He further submits that the petitioner is a mediator to the transaction
between the vendor and vendee and he is not aware of the alleged fabrication of documents. He further submits that the petitioner is a poor person and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said application. According to him, though the F.I.R is silent as to the role played by each of the accused but further investigation made by the police revealed the involvement of the petitioner and ten others in the alleged fraud. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, or under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash a complaint, even before completion of investigation, is limited. The law laid down, in State of Haryana v. Ch.
Bhajan Lal, which has been followed in several other judgments of the Supreme Court, is that interference is permissible in cases (a) where the allegations made in the FIR 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; (b) where the allegations in the FIR 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; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or the 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; (d) 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; and (e) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused, and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
laid only on account of personal animosity that, by itself, will not be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected.
A reading of the remand report would categorically show that A-1 and A11 with a malafide intention to grab the land approached A-2 to A-4 at "Mannan Associates" Diwan Devdi, Madhina, Hyderabad to create fabricated document No.7988 of 1981 in the name of G.Rani showing as if she has purchased the land from Srinath Rao. They also created an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by Rani in favour of one Srinath Rao, dated 19-02-2009. Thereafter, they are alleged to have executed another agreement of sale by Srinatha Rao in favour of A-5, which was later registered in favour of A-6 vide sale deed No.2377/2013, dated 14-02-2013. The remand report further discloses that A-7 and A-8 acted as witnesses.
After registration of said documents, A-11 approached A-9 offering him the plot and A-11 approached A-9 to help them in selling the property. A-9 is alleged to have deputed A-10 to sell the plot. LW.7 inturn informed the same to LW.6 who agreed to buy the plot and subsequently purchased the same vide document No.17837/2013, dated 09-12-2013 at Joint Registrar Office, Ranga Reddy District, for which LW.7 and A-11 acted as witnesses. After registration, A-9 received an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- from Lw.5 and LW.6 and later distributed the same among all the accused.
The material placed before the Court would further show that A-1 herein is involved in Cr.No.300 of 2012, 27 of 2014, 218 of 2014, 307 of 2014, 315 of 2014 and 316 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC. The record also discloses about the involvement of A-2 to A-4 in number of crimes along with A-1. Since the averments in the remand report prima facie discloses involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence, it cannot be said that he is innocent of the offence at this point of time. Since the investigation is still pending and having regard to the allegations made, which prima facie constitute the offences alleged, more particularly the act of forgery and using the forged document as genuine knowing that the same is forged, this Court opines that it is not a fit case to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the investigation.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
____________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J 01-10-2015 Nvl