IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J.
Ashok Kumar Agarwal And 3 Others – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Telangana, Rep., PP And Another – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.9486 of 2017
Decided on : 11-03-2022
Forgery - Property Dispute - IPC 406, 420, 506 read with 34 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings against them for alleged offences under IPC sections 406, 420, 506 read with 34. The dispute arose from the ownership of a property and alleged forgery and cheating by the accused. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found prima facie evidence of cheating and forgery, and declined to quash the proceedings. [ISSUES] Ownership dispute, forgery, cheating. [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that the allegations of cheating and forgery needed to be investigated and were not fit for quashing. [FINAL DECISION] The petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
This petition is filed by the petitioners-A3 to A6 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.242 of 2017 on the file of Saifabad Police Station registered against them for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad submitting that she was the lawful owner of the property bearing Municipal No.6-1-1060 and 6-1-1060 D, Ground floor admeasuring 700 Sq.feet (Shop No.5 and 6) situated at Hafeez Complex, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad having acquired the same by way of registered settlement deed bearing document No.763/2015 dated 19-2-2015 executed by her father Mohd. Ashraf S/o.Late Mohd. Zakeriya. She submitted that the said property was given on long lease by her grandfather Late Mohd. Zakeriya for a period of 9 years in 2003 to Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 1), who sub-let the said property to Kaleshwari Travels, against the terms of lease, wherein they were carrying on the business of travel agency and allied services. The said lease expired in 2012. After the death of her grandfather Mohd. Zakeriya, the entire property was devolved upon her father (A1) and his brother (A2) and their sister Akhter Jahan, who was residing in USA. The property was not put to partition. Both A1 and A2 created charges upon the property. A1 offered Shop No.5 and 6, admeasuring each 350 Sq.feet at ground floor and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs towards sale price for the said shops. The complainant with great difficulty arranged the said amount and paid to A1 under a receipt drafted on Rs.100/- non-Judicial Stamp paper on 22-10-2014. A2 and her husband stood as witnesses. A1 promised to execute a conveyance deed but postponed and after a lot of persuasion executed a settlement deed on 19-2-2015 in favour of the complainant on her assurance to pay a further sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs to A3 to get him vacated. A1 and A2 assured that they negotiated the terms and conditions with A3 and that A3 was willing to vacate the same if he was paid Rs.10.00 lakhs. Accordingly the complainant obtained a demand draft for Rs.10.00 lakhs on 11-2-2016 and handed over the same to A1. After a couple of months, A1 returned the demand draft of Rs.10.00 lakhs asking her to approach the court to evict the tenants as A3 turned away from his promise of vacating the shops. Having no other option, the complainant got issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 25-4-2016 to A3 to quit and handover the shops. A3 got issued a reply notice stating that he entered into an agreement to purchase the shops from A1, A2 and Akhter Jahan, but the column of signature of Akhter Jahan was left blank. The complainant submitted that she initiated proceedings against A3 by filing OS No.1234 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. While filing written statement, A3 disclosed that A1 and A2 executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5393 and 5394 of 2016 dated 19-10-2016 in his favour. The complainant was put in total darkness about the transaction. The receipt submitted by A3 would show that she also received the sale proceeds. The signature found upon the indenture (receipt) dated 31-5-2016 did not belong to the complainant. A3 forged the signature in collusion with A1 and A2 to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. A1 and A2, being the father and paternal uncle, who ought to have protected her interest involved themselves in cheating, forgery. The purchasers submitted those documents in the court together with the alleged receipt as genuine, to usurp her own property. The said complaint was referred to the Police Saifabad and it was registered as Crime No.242 of 2017 under Section 406, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - complainant.
4. The learned co
The court found prima facie evidence of cheating and forgery, and declined to quash the proceedings.
The judgment emphasized the legal principle that the execution of a document claiming ownership is distinct from executing a document by impersonating the owner, highlighting the need for intention t....
Execution of sale deeds does not amount to forgery without clear intent; civil disputes should not be framed as criminal complaints.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations of forgery, cheating, and threatening must satisfy the essential elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The ....
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating or criminal liability unless a fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to exist at the inception of the transaction. Similarly, execution of a....
A criminal complaint for forgery and cheating cannot be sustained merely because a party enters into a property transaction despite a defective title originating from previously declared invalid docu....
The court emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal offences, quashing the FIR due to lack of criminal intent in the allegations.
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and with abundant caution, and criminal proceedings should not be used to settle purely civil disputes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.