IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground either to quash criminal proceedings or even to acquit accused.
(2) Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon nature of act alleged thereunder – Complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of the original accused and is directed against the order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 1st of June, 2021 in Criminal Petition No. 4687 of 2020 by which the High Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings instituted against the appellant herein at the instance of the respondent No. 2 (original complainant) and accordingly rejected the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of the proceedings.

Factual Matrix

3. This litigation highlights one of the most perfunctory investigations at the hands of the police. The subject matter of this litigation is an open plot admeasuring 321 square yards situated at the village Nallagandla, District Ranga Reddy, State of Telangana. The respondent No. 2 herein (original complainant) claims to be the lawful owner of the said plot. It is not in dispute that the original complainant had purchased the said plot of land by way of a sale deed executed in his favour dated 09.05.2008 bearing registration No. 102/2008.

4. It is the case of the complainant that in the sale deed dated 09.05.2008, the appellant herein is one of the attesting witnesses. The appellant herein also happens to be the cousin of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that all the original documents of the plot in question remained in possession of the appellant as necessary permissions from different authorities were to be obtained. It is the case of the complainant that one fine day he came to know that the plot in question had been transferred in favour of one Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu, a resident of USA. The transfer took place by way of a sale deed said to have been executed by the complainant on 29.12.2010 in favour of Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu. In the said sale deed, the appellant herein is shown as one of the attesting witnesses. According to the complainant, at no point of time he had executed any such sale deed in favour of Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu and a bogus and concocted sale deed dated 29.12.2010 bearing registration No. 4405/2010 came to be created by the appellant herein in collusion with Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu, Smt. Pramila Yadav and one R. Nagender Yadav. It is the case of the complainant that his signature on the alleged sale deed has been forged as a part of the criminal conspiracy hatched by the appellant herein in collusion with the other co-accused named above.

5. In such circumstances referred to above, the complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of the First Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajenderanagar. The complaint came to be registered as Criminal Complaint No. 1029 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 resply of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was lodged in the Court on 24th of April, 2014.

6. It appears that the learned Magistrate thought fit to pass an order directing the police to undertake the investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Sub-Inspector of Police Raidurgam District carried out the investigation and filed charge sheet only against the appellant herein. The other persons named above were dropped and not arrayed as accused. At the end of the investigation, the investigating agency arrived at the conclusion that the original accused No. 1 namely Smt. Kalpana Yadav Mangalarapu and accused No. 2 namely Smt. Pramila Yadav could be said to be bona fide purchasers of the property for value without notice. According to the investigating agency, the person who actually impersonated the complainant before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the disputed sale deed was found to be an unknown person.

7. The record further reveals that the complainant later in point of time also instituted Original Suit No. 1343 of 2016 in the Court of the District Jud