The court upheld the necessity for investigation into allegations of fraud in the execution of a sale deed, despite delays and the presence of civil proceedings, citing unique factual differences from earlier cases.

ORDER :

HARINATH N. J.

The criminal petition is filed seeking to quash FIR.No.224 of 2022, dated 18.05.2022 on the file of Chandragiri Police Station for the alleged offence under Section 420 , 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.2 in the above crime. The accusation made against the petitioner and other accused is that the de facto complainant is the owner of the property of the land in question and the petitioner who is A-2 along with A-4 and A5 obtained registered sale deed from the de facto complainant while he was in intoxication state in respect of the said land and the de facto complainant never intended to sell the said land to them and as such he was cheated by the petitioner and other accused.

3. The main grievance against the petitioner is that the petitioner got executed sale deed for land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents of Rangampet Village belonging to the petitioner. It is a specific case of the 2^nd respondent that the petitioner under the guise of execution of document relating to land admeasuring Ac.9.34 cents had concealed the documents pertaining to the land at Rangampet mango Garden. It is stated that the same came to the knowledge of the 2^nd respondent for obtaining Encumbrance Certificate (EC).

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint is filed at a belated stage and that there is no truth in the allegation that the petitioner played fraud on the 2^nd respondent and stealthily got executed the sale deed relating to the mango garden belonging to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the 2^nd respondent did not take this ground in the civil suit filed for injunction vide OS.No.9 of 2022. It is submitted that the suit was subsequently withdrawn and that no further steps were taken seeking cancellation of the sale deed etc., 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Babu Venkatesh and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another , [(2022) 5 SCC 639] the abnormal delay in filing a complaint after a period of one and half year from the date of filing of written statement was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the criminal case was quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Sardar Ali Khan Vs. State of Utta Pradesh, through Principal Secretary, Home Department and another , [(2020) 12 SCC 51] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of maintainability of a criminal case when a civil suit is pending on the same subject. It was held that when the suit was filed in the year 2008, filing a criminal complaint in the year 2012 alleging forgery and impersonation was held as impermissible and the criminal case was quashed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further places reliance on Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi , [(2007) 12 SCC 641] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in filing a complaint would have to be viewed with suspicion and delay would at times speak fatal to prosecution.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent appears virtually online and submits that the investigation has been stayed by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 17.06.2022. It is submitted that a petition to vacate the interim order was filed soon after by the 2^nd respondent. It is submitted that the investigation ought to have been completed as several factual aspects would come out only after investigation is completed.

8. It is also submitted that the 2^nd respondent had filed OS.No.9 of 2022 seeking bare injunction against the petitioner as he was interfering with the possession of the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent realized the fraud played on him by the petitioner and others and as such withdrew the OS.No.9 of 2