Back
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. SRI DEVI, J.
Faisal Bin Tirial and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 1532 and 3347 of 2018
Decided On : 01-10-2019
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 468, 471, 447, 427, 506 and 188 r/w Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 156 (3) ,200 &482 – Criminal Petition No.1532 of 2018 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C – Seeking quash of investigation and Proceedings for other offences No.3347 of 2018 registered against petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 – Whether in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can enter into controversy that any case is made out against petitioners or not – Whether complaint filed by de facto complainant moved due to personal vendetta and whether personal vendetta can be made an instrument to initiate criminal proceedings – Whether third respondent had any locus-standi to lodge FIR because land belongs to son of third respondent or whether any fraud was committed on her – Whether criminal colour has been given to dispute of civil nature, which is not permitted under provisions of law – Held, Both proceedings are factually based on these facts which are sub-judiced before civil Court and alleged offence of trespass cannot be independent of said civil dispute – No material in complaint/F.I.R., showing commission of any offence much less to say that offences – As observed a Hon’ble Apex Court in several of judgments held that where ingredients of certain offences not made out in F.I.R./complaint, such criminal proceedings liable to quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C – While holding that, it was observed that, where ingredients require to constitute criminal offence not made out from bare reading of complaint, continuation of criminal complaint is an abuse of process of law – Contentions urged before this Court by counsel for petitioners and counsel for third respondent,law declared by tApex Court in judgments referred supra, it is suffice to conclude that contentions raised by counsel for third respondent without any substance and material produced before this Court, directly indicates mala fides in prosecution of criminal proceedings against petitioners – Also by abuse of process of tCourt, as an arm-twisting method to bring petitioners to terms of respondent-3 and to cloak civil dispute with criminal nature, has resorted to criminal litigation – Both Criminal Petitions allowed (Paras: 33,34,38 & 40)
Facts of the case:
Seeking quash of investigation and Proceedings for other offences No.3347 of 2018 registered against petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 – Whether in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court can enter into controversy that any case is made out against petitioners or not – Whether complaint filed by de facto complainant moved due to personal vendetta and whether personal vendetta can be made an instrument to initiate criminal proceedings – Whether third respondent had any locus-standi to lodge FIR because land belongs to son of third respondent or whether any fraud was committed on her – Whether criminal colour has been given to dispute of civil nature, which is not permitted under provisions of law
Findings of the court:
Both proceedings are factually based on these facts which are sub-judiced before civil Court and alleged offence of trespass cannot be independent of said civil dispute – No material in complaint/F.I.R., showing commission of any offence much less to say that offences – As observed a Hon’ble Apex Court in several of judgments held that where ingredients of certain offences not made out in F.I.R./complaint, such criminal proceedings liable to quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C – While holding that, it was observed that, where ingredients require to constitute criminal offence not made out from bare reading of complaint, continuation of criminal complaint is an abuse of process of law – Contentions urged before this Court by counsel for petitioners and counsel for third respondent, law declared by tApex Court in judgments referred supra, it is suffice to conclude that contentions raised by counsel for third respondent without any substance and material produced before this Court, directly indicates mala fides in prosecution of criminal proceedings against petitioners – Also by abuse of process of tCourt, as an arm-twisting method to bring petitioners to terms of respondent-3 and to cloak civil dispute with criminal nature, has resorted to criminal litigation
Result: Both Criminal Petitions allowed
ORDER :
1. Criminal Petition No.1532 of 2018 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the investigation in Crime No.48 of 2018 on the file of Moinabad Police Station, Cyberabad, registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and another, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 419, 420, 468 and 471of I.P.C.
2. Criminal Petition No.3347 of 2018 is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.689 of 2018 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, registered against the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 and 188 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
3. Since the issues involved in both the petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order.
4. The facts in brief are as under:
5. The averments in the report in Crime No.48 of 2018 of Moinabad Police station and the charge sheet in C.C.No.689 of 2018 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar, would show that the son of the third respondent by name late Mohd. Javed Ahmed Siddiqui (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) had acquired total land to an extent of Ac.15.33 Gts., in Sy.Nos. 288/1, 289, 299, 300 and 301, situated at Chilkur Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through four separate sale deeds vide document Nos. 6705/1998, dated 02.09.1998, 11202/1993 dated 17.12.1993, 3873/1994, dated 06.05.1994 and 9552/1993 dated 25.10.1993 and since then he claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later, the deceased-Javed Ahmed Siddique made a lay-out in the name of “Golden Meadows” and sold away several plots. It is said that about 95% of plots in the lay-out were in his exclusive possession and enjoyment till his death and after his demise the third respondent continued in possession of the same. The original owner i.e., the son of the 3rd respondent died on 28.01.2016, leaving behind the third respondent (mother), his wife Mrs.Rizwana Begum and his minor son Mohd. Fahed Ahmed Siddiqui as his Class-I legal heirs. During his life time, the deceased married to the accused No.1 and due to strong differences, they took divorce on 28.06.2013 before the office of the Government Kazi, Golconda, Hyderabad. After death of the deceased, accused No.1 visited the house of the third respondent for sympathy and during that period she committed theft of the original documents of the above property, jewellery, cash along with bank locker keys and also kidnapped the minor son of the deceased. A case was registered against accused No.1 vide Crime No.76 of 2016 of Chaderghat Police Station, Hyderabad and the same is pending. The police, however, took the custody of the minor son but the original documents were in the custody of accused No.1. Taking advantage of custody of the said documents, accused No.1, criminally conspired with the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, handed over the registered sale deeds to them and also created an agreement of sale. On the basis of the said documents, the petitioners filed a collusive suit vide O.S.No.45 of 2016 before the XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, and got it referred to Lok Adalath and a settlement was arrived at. Under the guise of compromise decree, the petitioners tried to trespass into the property and a complaint was also registered before the Moinabad Police Station, vide Crime No.91 of 2017 and the same is pending. Basing on the collusive decree, the petitioners filed E.P.No.4 of 2017 before the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, and obtained possession warrant. However, the third respondent filed a Claim-Petition vide E.A.No.3 of 2017. In spite of pending the said Claim-Petition, the said Court issued warrant of delivery of possession. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent and other legal heirs of the deceased filed C.R.P.No.2429 of 2017 before this Court. By an ord
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
