Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 757
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
KUNURU LAKSHMAN, J.
Syed Mahmood Ali and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 4515, 4516 and 4525 of 2020
Decided On : 15-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Muhammad Veqar Hussain
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor and K. Pallavi
At the initial stage, the court should not stifle proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. If the ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie made out in the complaint, criminal proceedings should not be interdicted.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC - Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed petitions to quash criminal proceedings against them in three separate cases involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC. The de facto complainant, a director of two companies, alleged that the petitioners forged documents, including resolutions and power of attorneys, to sell the companies' properties for wrongful gains.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that prima facie allegations of forgery and cheating were levelled against the petitioners, and the correctness of the allegations should be decided during trial. The court directed the investigating officer to follow the procedure under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and not to arrest the petitioners until completion of the investigation.
Issues: Allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC. Whether the complaints disclose prima facie offences against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that at the initial stage, it was not open to stifle proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. If the ingredients of the alleged offences were prima facie made out in the complaint, criminal proceedings should not be interdicted.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions, directing the investigating officer not to arrest the petitioners until completion of the investigation and filing of final reports in all three cases.
ORDER :
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. Since in all these three Criminal Petitions, the petitioners, de facto complainant are common and the allegations are almost similar, they are being disposed of by way of common order.
2. Petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') vide Crl.P. No. 4515 of 2020 to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 300 of 2020 on the file of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioners in the said crime are under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.')
3. The very same petitioners have filed Crl.P. No. 4516 of 2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 244 of 2020 on the file of Mahaboobnagar (R), Mahaboobnagar District. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 I.P.C.
4. The petitioners have also filed Crl.P. No. 4525 of 2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against them in Crime No. 82 of 2020 on the file of Rajapur Police Station, Mahaboobnagar District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C.
5. Allegations against the petitioners in Crime No. 300 of 2020 are as follows:
The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the Director of "Hetch Hotels and Resorts Private Limited". According to him, the Registered Office of the said Company is at Plot No. 7/E, 8-2-293/82, F, F-11/A/7E, Road No. 6, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The de facto complainant and his wife are the Directors of the said Company. Except the de facto complainant and his wife, there is no other Director in the said company. The said Company has purchased land admeasuring Ac. 26-08 guntas in different survey numbers of Polepally Village H/o Peddapally, Jadcherla Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under various sale deeds on different dates.
6. It is further alleged by the de facto complainant that the said Company has obtained conversion proceedings in the year 2007 itself converting the said land from agriculture to non-agriculture. The said properties were kept intact and in fact, the Company was not working and the properties were lying in the name of the said Company. The name of the said Company was struck off by the Government of India on 21.07.2017 itself.
7. It is further alleged by the de facto complainant that due to some financial necessities, the de facto complainant was intending to sell the said properties of the Company, he has obtained Encumbrance Certificate on 08.05.2020 and came to know the fraud played by the petitioners herein in collusion with other accused. The petitioners herein have forged the signatures of the de facto complainant and his wife and created Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, which is a forged Resolution. The petitioners herein by virtue of forged Resolution, dated 03.12.2018, given authorization to the 1st petitioner to deal with all the properties of the said Company claiming that he is the Manager of the said Company. According to him, the de facto complainant and his wife have not signed the alleged Resolution, dated 03.12.2018 and the said Resolution was forged by the petitioners. The Company address also wrongly mentioned. The petitioners in active connivance with other accused, created General Power of Attorneys vide Document bearing Nos. 3233/2019 and 3235/2019, both dated 08.02.2019, which were executed in favour of the 2nd petitioner herein, who is own brother of de facto complainant and the 2nd petitioner knows very well that the said Company has not passed any Resolution and no authorization was given to the 1st petitioner. Thus, the petitioners herein, in collusion with other accused, have created the Resolution, dated 03.12.2018 and executed the above said General Power Attorneys for wrongful gains. It is further alleged in the complaint, dated 22.05.2020, that the petitioners in active connivance with other accuse
