Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
M. Srikanth – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana And Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1586-1588 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9156, 9160, 9161 of 2017)
Decided on : 21-10-2019
(a) Administration of justice - Dispute regarding property inheritance - A civil dispute - Civil cases already pending - The issues cannot be decided in criminal proceeding. (Para 20)
(b) Code of Criminal Proceeding - Section 482 - Complaint not making out the alleged criminal offence against the appellant - Complainant not disclosing the fact that her writ petition for restraining construction on the plot was dismissed - No conspiracy found - High Court also finding that complaint is against accused 1 for committing fraud and falsification - No material against accused 4 - On these very grounds High Court granting relief u/s 482 to accused 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 - Held , ought to have exercised same parameters in case of accused 4 also. (Para 25, 26)
(c) Code of Criminal Proceeding - Section 482 - Even if the complaint is taken on its face value, there is no material to proceed against accused 4 - His case covered under categories (1) and (3) of Bhajan Lal - Entitled to relief u/s 482. (Para 27)
Facts of the case:
The criminal appeal filed by M. Srikanth, the original accused No. 4, challenges that part of the order by which the single Judge of the High Court has rejected his application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 311/2010 of P.S., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The criminal appeals at the instance of the original complainant challenge that part of the order vide which the single Judge of the High Court has quashed the complaint qua accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Finding of the Court:
Appellant 4 is entitled to relief u/s 482, CrPC.
Result: Criminal appeal filed by accused No. 4 allowed. The criminal appeals filed by the original complainant dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses Bhajan Lal categories as tests to quash under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (!) - It applies Bhajan Lal categories (especially categories (1) and (3)) to determine that no material exists to proceed against accused No. 4, rendering continuation of proceedings an abuse of process (!) - It notes civil disputes and pending civil suits related to inheritance and property as factors for quashing when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence (!) - It records that the High Court should have applied the same parameters to accused No. 4 as to other accused whose petitions were allowed (!) - The Supreme Court quashes the criminal proceedings against accused No. 4 and dismisses the appeals challenging quashing qua others (!)
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
2. Both these appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Order passed by the single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh dated 01.06.2017.
3. The criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9156 of 2017 filed by M. Srikanth, the original accused No. 4, challenges that part of the order by which the single Judge of the High Court has rejected his application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 311/2010 of P.S., Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The criminal appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 9160-9161 of 2017 at the instance of the original complainant challenge that part of the order vide which the single Judge of the High Court has quashed the complaint qua accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under:
The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the original complaint. The Respondent No. 2, Fatima Hasna, in the criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9156 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”), is the sister of accused No. 1, Akramuddin Hasan. The complainant had filed a private complaint against nine persons including accused No. 1. The allegations in the said complaint in a nutshell is that the house bearing No. 351102 at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, originally belonged to Afzaluddin Hassan, the father of the complainant, who died on 28.05.1996. Afzaluddin Hassan, possessed the same upon death of his mother, Khairunnisa Begum Saheba as per the oral gift dated 12.12.1966 and deed of confirmation of the said oral gift. It was the case of the complainant, that upon death of her father, Afzaluddin Hassan, the said property was inherited by her as well as her three sisters and accused No. 1, her brother. It is further averred in the complaint, that her father had entered into a development agreement on 25.05.1989 with M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. However, the same was cancelled during his lifetime. It is further averred by her that after the death of her father, accused No. 3, Abid Rassol Khan, tried to trespass into the property and for that on her complaint, Crime No. 159/1996 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 380 of the IPC on 14.06.1996.
5. It is further averred by her that, thereafter, she came to know about the existence of a document thereby assigning the rights by M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s NRI Housing Company Pvt. Ltd., represented through accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan. For the said incident another complaint vide Crime No. 177/1996, came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC against seven persons including M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 3 in the present case. With regard to the said cause of action, the complainant had also filed Original Suit No. 1989/1996 against accused No. 3 and others for permanent injunction. The complainant’s sisters had filed O.S. No. 1403/1999 against M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. of which accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan, was the Managing Director. According to the complainant, certain interim orders were also passed in the said original suits.
6. It is further the case of the complainant in the complaint, that her brother accused No. 1, Akramuddin Hasan, who had falsely created a will in Urdu purported to be executed by their paternal grandmother, Khairunnisa Begum Saheba, in favour of their parents Afzaluddin Hassan and Liaquathunnisa Begum for their lifetime and vested remainder to accused No. 1. It is the case of the complainant, that the said will is registered and said to have been executed on 02.04.1950. Further, it is the case, that accused No. 1 had also created another forged and fabricated document styled as deed
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
