IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY THE TWENTYEIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5541 OF 2012 Between:
Gude Mohana Rao & Ors. … Petitioners/A1, A2, A4 & A5 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP. … Respondents/Complainant & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Ravi Cheemalapati Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri M.Radha Krishna for R2 to R11 The court made the following: [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5541 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No. 33 of 2012 of Atchuthapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam district for alleged offences under section 193, 205, 209 read with section 120-B of IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioners submitted that respondents 2 to 11 filed a private complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate, Yelamanchili alleging that petitioners have fabricated documents in respect of properties in survey No.20 and that learned Magistrate forwarded the same to Police, on the basis of which above referred FIR is registered. He submitted that a civil suit is filed in OS.No.285 of 2011 before II- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the same property and the issue before the said court is with regard to genuineness of these documents. He submitted that respondents 2 to 11 herein are the defendants in the said suit and even if the entire complaint allegations are accepted in toto, no offence as alleged were attracted and the genuineness of the document is subject matter of civil dispute. For these reasons he submitted that FIR in Crime No.33 of 2012 of Atchuthapuram Police Station is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 11 submitted that there is specific allegation against respondents 2 to 11 that these documents are forged and fabricated stating that they were alleged to have been executed by Chintapalli Apparao in the year 1970 and unless investigation is conducted, truth will not come out.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this criminal petition.
6. As rightly pointed out by Advocate for petitioners that except making bald and vague statement in the complaint that a document is fabricated on 14/03/1970, no details are given. It is further contended that basing on that document, in the year 2011 registered sale deeds have come into existence. But the offences alleged against petitioners is under section 193 of IPC which is a provision for punishment for giving false evidence. Now at this stage whether the document is genuine or fabricated cannot be decided and it is not known what is a false evidence that the complainant alleged against the petitioners. The other offence alleged is under section 205 of IPC for false personnation in a suit or prosecution. For this also, there is absolutely no material. Even if the entire complaint is accepted in toto, no offence under section 205 IPC is attracted. Lastly, the other offence alleged is under section 209 IPC, which is for obtaining a decree fraudulently. Here the civil suit is still pending and that stage has not reached and we do not know the result of the suit, whether it will be decreed or dismissed. So as rightly pointed out by the counsel for petitioners that even if the entire complaint is accepted in toto, the ingredients of section 193, 205 and 209 of IPC are not at all attracted and the learned Magistrate without considering these aspects mechanically forwarded the complaint to Police, which is registered as FIR in Crime No.33 of 2012 of Atchuthapuram Police Station.
7. For the above reasons, I am of the view that this is a fit case, where the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. have to be exercised because if the proceedings are allowed to be continued, it would amount to abuse of process of court.
8. For these reasons, this Criminal Petition is allowed and FIR in Crime No.33 of 2012 of Atchuthapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam district, is hereby quashed.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
28/08/2014
I s L.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5541 OF 2012 Circulation No.52 Date: 28/08/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43