Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 949
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.V.SEETHAPATHY
D. S. MURTHY - Appellant
Versus
D. BHARATHI - Respondent
Decided On : 09/24/2007
Criminal Revision Case 1265 Of 2007
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 465 and 471 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section245 (1) – Fabricating signature – Will – Seeking entry mutation of property – First respondent herein is stepmother of petitioner-A. 1 – She gave a complaint alleging that she is owner of house property having got same from her parental family and that accused 1 and 2, who are her step sons, approached municipal authorities seeking mutation in name of their sons accused 3 and 4 on ground that the husband of complainant executed a will in favour of his grand sons in respect of said house property – Complainant alleges that A-1 forwarded a letter to Municipal authorities fabricating signature of complainant thereon purporting to seek mutations and she came to know about it when municipal authorities came for inspection in connection with enquiry for mutation – According to complainant, she never issued any such letter to Municipal authorities and her signature was fabricated by first accused – Held, She categorically denied her signature on disputed letter Ex. A. P. 8 – Hand-writing Expert also gave an opinion that the signature on Ex. P- 813 not that of the complainant – One Jagadish, who is examined by police during investigation claims that letter was given to him by A-1 for obtaining signature of complainant and as he could not contact her he himself scribed name of complainant and gave it to a-1 and informed same to A-1 and thereafter, A-1 forwarded the said letter ex. P-8 along with his own forwarding letter ex. P-4 to municipal authorities – Fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document liable for punishment in same manner as if he had forged such document – Question as to whether or not it is a forged document and whether or not he used document as genuine knowing it to be forged are matters to be considered at the time of trial after necessary evidence is adduced – Material on record at this stage shows prima facie case against the petitioner A-1 so as to proceed against him for alleged offences under Section 465 and 471 IPC – In light of earlier order of this court in Crl. P. holding that there was prima facie case against A-1, the petition in crl. M. P. 2988 of 2007 filed by A-1 seeking discharge is yet another effort by him to stall further proceedings – Finding of learned magistrate that there is enough material on record to frame charge against petitioner A-1 for offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC does not call for any interference and the petition for discharge was rightly dismissed – Hence Criminal revision case is dismissed.
( 2 ) THE revision petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC in c. C. No. 385 of 2007. The first respondent herein is the stepmother of the petitioner-A. 1. She gave a complaint alleging that she is the owner of the house property situated in S. D. Road, Secunderabad, having got the same from her parental family and that accused 1 and 2, who are her step sons, approached the municipal authorities seeking mutation in the name of their sons accused 3 and 4 on the ground that the husband of the complainant executed a will in favour of his grand sons in respect of the said house property. The complainant further alleges that A-1 forwarded a letterto the Municipal authorities fabricating the signature of the complainant thereon purporting to seek the mutations and she came to know about it when the municipal authorities came for inspection in connection with the enquiry for mutation. According to the complainant, she never issued any such letter to the Municipal authorities and her signature was fabricated by first accused.
( 3 ) THE complaint was forwarded by the magistrate to the police for investigation and the Market police registered FIR in cr. No. 55 of 2000 under Sections 463, 646, 470 r/w 120-B IPC. Subsequently, they filed a final report referring the matter as a mistake of fact. On filing objections by the complainant before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner A-1 and 3 others. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed and the learned sessions Judge alleged the revision in respect of A-2 to A-4 but directed taking of cognizance against A-1. Thereupon, A-1 filed Crl. P. No. 4953 of 2004 seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The complainant filed Crl. P. No. 1219 of 2005 questioning the orders of the learned Sessions judge exonerating A-2 to A-4 and by common order dated 19-7-2006 this Court disposed of the petition filed by the petitioner A-1 holding that prima facie there was case against A-1 and confirming the order of the learned magistrate taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 465 and 471 IPC with modification that A-1 shall not be tried for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, as the said offence is not made out. The petition filed by the complainant was dismissed holding that prima facie there was no case against A-2 to a-4. The said order dated 19-07-2006 of this court wherein cognizance against A-1 was directed to taken for the offence under sections 465 and 471 IPC has become final.
( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY on 13-11 -2006, A-1 filed another application in Crl. M. P. No. 2988 of 2007 under Section 245 (1) Cr. P. C. seeking discharge from the prosecution in the same ground that even according to P. W. 1 it is one jagadish who submitted application to the municipal authorities, which purported to contain the signature of the complainant. The learned Magistrate by order dated 21 -8-2007 dismissed the said application holding that there is enough material on record to frame charge against A-1 for the offences under sections 465 and 471 IPC and it is not a fit case to discharge him. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision case is filed.
( 5 ) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State are heard. Records are perused.
( 6 ) THE specific allegations of the complainant is that she never addressed any letter to the Municipal authorities seeking mutation of the property in pursuance of the alleged will dated 24-4-1996 said to have been executed by her
