1. Petition to quash FIR for cheating arising from a property development dispute involving alleged forged documents. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J. Sreenivas Rao, J
G. Gopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Sayeed Bin Awad Bamiqdad – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.11658 of 2017 | CRIMINAL PETITION No.11717 of 2017
1. Petition to quash FIR for cheating arising from a property development dispute involving alleged forged documents. (Para 1 , 3 )
2. Accused argued no dishonest intention and civil suit pending; complainant alleged forgery and cheating. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Petitions dismissed; investigation directed to proceed following Section 41-A CrPC and Arnesh Kumar guidelines. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
No, civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously; criminal prosecution can be sustained if criminal intent is present. (Para 8 , 9 )
No, an FIR is not an encyclopedia; it only sets the criminal law in motion and a factual foundation suffices. (Para 11 )
No, unless the case falls within exceptional categories; quashing would amount to premature evaluation and encroach on police function. (Para 11 , 12 )
No, the civil profile does not strip the act of its criminal outfit; criminal intent must be examined. (Para 9 )
No, they are best determined during investigation; the court should not embark on an inquiry into the truth of allegations at the threshold. (Para 7 , 13 )
COMMON ORDER
Criminal Petition No.11658 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.11717 of 2017 is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.169 of 2017 of Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).
1.1. As the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, both the criminal petitions are clubbed together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard Mr.Mohd. Gulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Gajanand Chakravarthy, learned counsel, representing Mr.Mohd. Ayub, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. The de facto complainant, Mr. Sayeed Bin Awad Bamiqdad, is the absolute owner and possessor of House No. 3-5-786/23, admeasuring about 270 square yards, situated at Shergate, King Koti, Hyderabad, by virtue of a Registered Gift Settlement Deed Document No. 2167/2007, dated 28.07.2007. In 2007, he, along with eight other owners, entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 29.11.2007 with Sri G. Gopal Reddy, Managing Director of M/s Value Tech Engineering Services Private Limited, for construction of a residential complex (“Precision Towers”) with agreed ownership of 42.5% built-up area to owners and 57.5% to the builder. The builder was required to complete construction within 24 months including grace period of 3 months but delayed the project by nearly 10 years, completing it only in 2017, and failed to hand over the complainant’s rightful share. Flat Nos. 101 and 401 with two car parking places and terrace rights, and also failed to provide the agreed main entrance through the Apollo Hospital Road. Further, the builder, in collusion with mediator Hyder Masqati @ Nawab, retained the complainant’s original link documents and allegedly misused them to create forged and fabricated property documents, including a false Gift Settlement Deed (Doc. No. 1407/2009) in respect of a non-existing property No. 3-5-786/23 (Part), thereby encroaching upon the complainant’s and Government land. Despite complaints to the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 2013, the documents were not returned. The builder, mediator, and the complainant’s brothers, Hussain Bin Awad and Abbu Bakkar Bin Awad, further colluded to prepare a forged Partition Deed dated 07.04.2014, falsely claiming that the complainant had orally gifted the said flats to family members, based on which, Flat No. 101 was later sold to B. Rooparani under Sale Deed Document No. 1266/2017. The complainant asserts that he never executed any such Gift or Partition Deeds and seeks legal action against the builder, mediator, and family members for cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, and misuse of documents, and for restoration of his lawful property rights. Based on the said complaint, the present crime was registered for the aforesaid offences.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint.
He further submitted that respondent No.2 executed Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum-Receipt on 21.05.2014. Pursuant to the same, accused No.1 has already handed over the possession of the Flats to accused Nos.3 and 4, who are own brothers of respondent No.2, and there is no dishonest intention on his part. Especially pursuant to the understanding between the family members of respondent No.2, accused No.1 handed over the possession of the Flats to his family members.
4.2 He further submitted that accused No.1 is not a party in any of the document i.e., Declaration-cum-Undertaking-cum- Receipt, dated 21.05.2014 and Partition D
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