IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 330 OF 2023

Criminal Revision Case Under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order made in Crl.MP.No.660/2019 in CC.No.1107/2017 dated 04-05-2023 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad.

Between:

P.Indira, w/o Late P.Janardhan Reddy, aged about 59 years, Occ- Housewife R/o H.No. 1-2-412/10, Domalaguda, Hyderabad.

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

AND

• 1. The State of Telangana, through S.H.O., Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
• 2. Vijay Vasant Karwande, s/o Late V.LKarwande Aged 78 years, Occ- Private Employee r/o H.No. 1-2-412/9, Plot No.A-6 Gagan Mahal Co-op. Society Limited Domalaguda, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioner in C.C.No. 1107 of 2017 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main Criminal Revision Case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. DOKKA MOHAN RAO

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI. RAJASHEKAR RAO SALVAJI

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 330 OF 2023 ORDER:

Heard Mr. D. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Mr. Rajashekar Rao Salvaji, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent No.2 and Mr. M. Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

$2.$ This revision case has been filed assailing the order dated 04.05.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.660 of 2019 in C.C.No. 1107 of 2017 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

3. The revision petitioner/accused No.4 (hereinafter 'the petitioner') had filed a petition under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the 'CrPC') for discharge from the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC').

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the father of the de facto complainant had purchased the subject property in the year 1960 and

NTR.J CRLRC 330_2023

after his demise the same was devolved upon their mother. $On$ 27.06.2015 the de facto complainant addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad contending that the accused Nos.1 to 3 had fabricated a forged agreement of sale dated 01.04.2005 allegedly signed by their mother, though at the relevant time their mother was in United States of America. Therefore contending that the agreement of sale is false and fabricated, prayed for investigation and for necessary action against the accused. The complaint was received as first information statement and after the investigation the Police Chikkadpally filed the final report against the petitioner and the other accused. Thus filed the petition for discharge.

The trial Court after considering the record observed that the 5. materials are falling short to make out any offence against the petitioner under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC discharged for those offences, nonetheless by observing that there are serious allegations against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and as the petitioner is the mother of accused No.3 and as she initially addressed a letter to the brother of the de facto complainant for execution of sale deed and as

$\mathcal{L}$

she would be the direct beneficiary held that there is prima facie case under Section 120-B of the IPC and dismissed the petition to that extent. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision case came to be filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even a perusal of the charge sheet, documents relied on by the prosecution are not forming any case against the petitioner much less any offence alleged in the complaint. Further submits that even when the uncontroverted allegations on its face value does not make up any case and when none of the witnesses stated anything against the petitioner, merely on the ground that the petitioner had addressed letter for sale deed in her favour by mentioning that, she is ready with necessary amounts, itself does not constitute any offence and continuing prosecution for criminal conspiracy would be unjust. The trial Court had rightly considered that there is no material to show that the revision petitioner had in any way involved in fabrication or cheating or entrustment of property, there cannot be any material to demonstrate conspiracy, thus, praved for intervention in the revision.

$\mathfrak{F}$

NTR,J CRLRC_330_2023

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor pleaded in support of $7.$ the impugned order and submits that the fact of petitioner addressing a letter for execution of sale deed without there being any agreement itself is misrepresentation and establishing her interest in the property and nexus with the accused. Thus the impugned order is justified.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant would 8. submit that the petitioner's contention that her name was not even referred in the police report/first information statement and there is no material against the petitioner has been clearly considered by the trial Court in the impugned order. In addition implored that the first information statement need not disclose every detail and the police investigation may find involvement of any person, hence absence of reference in the report, claiming discharge by the petitioner is untenable. On this aspect, the learned counsel cited the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others¹ and pleaded that the investigation culminated into final report is referring to the

$1$ LL 2021 SC 211

4

connivance of the petitioner and her interest in the subject property, therefore with the help of other accused created forged document for her benefit. That apart, the materials collected by investigating agency are disclosing that in the civil suit O.S.No.882 of 2013 filed by the de facto complainant for perpetual injunction the petitioner was shown as one of the defendants. As such the materials are indicating the petitioner's involvement and the proof of criminal conspiracy and other aspects are subject matters of trial. Hence making any determination at this stage would be improper and praved for dismissal of the revision.

The rival pleadings of the learned counsel are carefully 9. considered and the materials on record are perused.

Indisputably, in the police report/first information statement $10.$ there was no reference of the petitioner/accused No.4. However, the de facto complainant in the statement under Section 161 of CrPC indicated that the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 14.09.2006 to his brother asking for execution of sale deed in her favour and that she is ready with all necessary formalities i.e. demand drafts to pay. Against such letter on 25.11.2006 his brother replied that their

$\mathsf{S}$

NTR,J CRLRC 330 202i

lamrlv is not considcring the salc of the subject Properq' Srmilar statement has been made by his brother as LW-2. Henceforward, in the final report by reFerring to the letter addressed by thc petitioner opined that all the accused wtth cornmon iflterrtion conspired with each other to grab the subiect proPerty. It was also tncntioned thrt thc accused Nos.1 and 2 in conniva.nce witl-r accused Nos 3 and ⁴ fabricated rwo scls of documcnts one is lorged agrecment o[ sale, allegedlv executed by thc mother crf ilte complainant in favour o[ the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the letter: addresscd by the petiuoner as rcmrncler is also crcatcd for the ptrPose of grabbing the subject PfoPeftv.

11. 'l'hus, the investigatrng agcncv by poinung at fabricauon oI the docurncnt/agreement of sale and the lctter addresscd by the peudonef to the brother o[ the cornplainant indictcd under Sections 120-8,468,471,420 of the IPC read with 34 of the IPC Pcrtinendy thc trial court after examining the material concluded that the accusations under Sccuons 420, 408 md 471 of the IPC are not madc out against the periuoner. T'hus, thc rolc ol the peutioner in fabrication of document has been disbe[eved 'fhis conclusion

6

attained hnal-iw as thc impugned order rvas not challenged by the prosecutlon

12. So lar as the petitioncr's Ietter lor sale is conccrned, thc complainant ancl his brothers' version rs that a rcply was grven rcfusing the proposal arrd the re was no further deliberation on this aspect. Mere addressing a letter offering to purchase the subjecr property and showrng readtrtcss cannot be tead as ground showing peuuoner's criminal conspiracv with thc accused. fher pleading of the respondenr No.?/complainanr that the pcriuoncr u,'ould be the benchciary is unlikely because the alleged agreement of sale was in iavour oF thc accused Nos.-l and 2. It is also part of record that for the rltervention wlth thc posscssron of the subject property crrmes u,'cre regrstcred against fhe accl:scd No,3 but nowhere tl-re reference r;f Pc[iuoncr in rhr.,se allegat,rns were made. F-urthcr showrng the revision peririoncr as defendanr in the suit lor perpetual tnjunction fitt:d by the complainant though a circumstance it cannot be strctched to pimaJicie believc that she shared anv c,ln)rnon inrcnuon with the other accused much less criminal conspiracy

I

7

$NTR.$ CRLRC_330_2023

13. In absence of any circumstance pointing out the positive act disclosing the possibility of involvement in the conspiracy, recording a finding that there are serious allegations against the petitioner or there is a case for proceeding further in trial is found improper.

$14.$ For the aforesaid, as the trial Court failed to consider these aspects in proper perspective, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner, without prima facie and strong suspicion would be abused of process of law.

15. Resultantly, the revision case is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.05.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.660 of 2019 in C.C.No. 1107 of 2017 on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is set aside and the petitioner/accused No.4 is discharged.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand SD/- CH.VENKATESWARLU closed.

ITRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

$\mathbf{4}$

1. The IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad (with records if Τo, 2. The Station House Officer Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI. DOKKA MOHAN RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. RAJASHEKAR RAO SALVAJI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court for the State of Telangana

• at Hyderabad [OUT].
• $\mathcal{C}$ 6. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/09/2023

ORDER

CRLRC.No.330 of 2023

ALLOWING THE CRLR.RC.

$q \text{ copies}$ $\frac{1}{2}$