IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 771 OF 2012
Between:
P. Dayanand … Petitioner/A2 V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & Anr. … Respondents/Complainant Counsel for Petitioner : Sri C. Mallesh Rao Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 771 OF 2012
O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash Proceedings in Crime No. 485 of 2011 of Neredmet Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy district in respect of A-2.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for Petitioner submitted that main allegation against petitioner made in the complaint attracting criminal offences are, petitioner has criminally conspired with Dr.P.Shankar Rao, Former Minister and forged orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of A.P. with an intention to use those orders for the purpose of cheating the complainant. He submitted that those alleged orders are not at all filed and there is no prima facie material to support the said allegation. He further submitted that SLP referred in the complaint i.e., Petition for Special Leave [Civil] No. 24987 of 2005 is filed against this petitioner and some others by one Yedla Ramesh and another against orders of this Court in AS.No.1113 of 1998 but according to allegations in the complaint that number relates to Haryana High Court which is patently incorrect. Learned counsel produced a copy of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal [Civil] No. 24987 of 2005 which was dismissed on 07/4/2006.
4. As seen from the complaint, the brief allegations against petitioner are:
(a) The complainant is the President of GreenFields Plot Owners Association and Co- ordinatior and Chairman of Joint Action Committee for GreenFields area plot owners consisting of various organizations etc. and that one Dr.P.Shankar Rao, Minister for Handlooms in A.P. Government is using his brother P.Dayanad [Petitioner/A-20 name as benami to grab GreenField Lands by falsification of issues, filing several cases, etc.
[b] That, the claim of the Green Field Association is that the land covered by their houses at Green Fields, Khanojiguda, Alwal, Ranga Reddy district is a Government land and that Minister Dr.P.Shankar Rao [A-1] has stalled their attempts in regularising their occupation of Government land as per G.O.Ms.No. 166, dated 16/2/2008 by writing a letter quoting judgments which in fact are not correct and that at the instance of Minister, Dr.P.Shankar Rao [A-20, “on 12/4/2010, P.Dayanand [A-2] field objection petition dated 11/4/2010 before the RDO Ranga Reddy district by suppressing many original facts and that earlier P.Dayanand [Petitioner/A2] and another colluded with so called protected tenants at the instance of Dr.P.Shankar Rao and field a suit in OS.No.195 of 1995 and obtained a decree of specific performance of agreement and that by orders of the Jt.Collector and Hon’ble High Court of A.P. the subject land is the Government land and the so called P.Dayanand [Petitioner/A2] and others are not having any valid marketable title to alienate the same to P.Dayanand [petitioner/A2] and others etc. and that Dr.P.Shankar Rao [petitioner/A1] nor P.Dayanand [Petitioner/A2] and nor any others are having any right to abuse the process of law by filing false cases and filing false complaints and we are entitled for regularization as per G.O.Ms.No. 166 dated 16/12/2008” etc.
[c] It is submitted that Dr.P.Shankar Rao cheated the Government by making a false statement and fudged and forged the SLP petition copy without any number or date and or any court details. This means Dr.P.Shankar Rao falsified the statement to mislead the Government with his letter. This amounts to cheating the Government and preventing the Government officials from discharging their duties and interfering with the duties of Revenue Officials and influencing the officials by using his office and his official position for his personal gains, which is against the oath of secrecy.
[d] Dr.Shankar Rao and others have criminally conspired and for such purpose forged the orders of Supreme Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh intending that such orders shall be used for the purpose of cheating the complainant. Dr. Shankar Rao and other accused herein have fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine forged court orders of Haryana purporting to have been the original SLP orders which he knows and believed to be a forged. When the complainant representing the case of 1000 and more helpless idle family victims before authorities, the henchmen of Shankar Rao have resorted to physical attacks and intimidations.
5. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner the main allegation against the petitioner is that he conspired with some other accused and forged orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of A.P. There is absolutely no material showing the details of those orders. To attract prima facie offence, the complainant has to file either the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court or orders of this court which are alleged to have been manipulated and forged. To attract the offence of forgery or cheating, there must be prima facie material supporting the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint.
6. On the other hand, the order copy produced on behalf of the petitioner herein would disclose that the allegations made in the complaint are prima facie incorrect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has formulated following guidelines in STATE OF HARYANA V/s.
BHAJAN LAL AND ORS
[1]
. to be considered by Courts at the time of invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) where the un-controverted 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;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) 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;
(g) 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.
7. The present case on hand squarely falls within point [e] of the above decision. Therefore, FIR in Crime No. 485 of 2011 of Neredmet Police Station, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy district is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the FIR against petitioner.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR.
09/06/2014 I s L HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 771 OF 2012 Circulation No. 138 Date: 09/06/2014 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 41st Court Hall
[1] ) 1992 Suppl [1] SCC 335