THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.103 of 2024 on the file of Choutuppal Town Police Station, Yadadri-Bhongir District, registered for the offences under Sections 120-B, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 IPC and 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel representing Smt. B. Lakshmi Kanaka Valli, learned counsel on record for the petitioners and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature and that the suit filed by the de facto complainant got dismissed and thus, has come up with the false case against the petitioners herein through this complaint and that there is no truth in the allegations that the petitioners have executed a fake registered sale deed in favour of Chinthakindi Ramulamma- petitioner No.2 herein by impersonating the de facto complainant. She further submitted that the petitioners never committed any such impersonation or act of forgery and therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the police have already issued notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., to the petitioners and submitted the documents to the FSL and that the expert opinion is awaited.

5. Perused the record.

6. The case of the de facto complainant is that the accused and the de facto complainant jointly purchased the agricultural land at Choutappal Revenue Village through the registered sale deed bearing No.149/81 dated 04.02.1981. Since the date of purchase, the de facto complainant is regularly visiting the land and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. When he visited the land on 05.02.2024, he found some changes in the land and learnt through some local people that some new persons were visiting the said land. Therefore, growing suspicious, he verified Encumbrance Certificate and could notice that the accused No.1 in collusion with accused No.2 made conspiracy and got executed a fake registered sale deed in favour of accused No.2 by impersonating the de facto complainant, fixing his photograph on the said sale deed. Thus, the allegations point out the prima facie case against the petitioners. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the matter is purely of civil nature, but since the prime allegation is with regard to impersonation and execution of a fake registered sale deed, a criminal element exists prima facie and whenever there is a criminal element, institution of criminal proceedings is not barred.

7. In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & ors.¹, it was held that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the complaint is bereft of any affidavit and relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2015) 6 SCC 287

9. In Priyanaka Srivastava’s case (2 supra) it was held that:

“In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also

2025 LiveLaw (SC) 712

can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people