The pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution for fraud or forgery, and the defense of being a bona fide purchaser is a matter for trial when allegations of collusion and prima facie forgery exist.

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes

________________

N. TUKARAMJI, J

GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar , (2009) 8 SCC 751;

Satish Mehra v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 13 SCC 614;

P.Z. Wilson v. State , Crl. P. No. 5239 of 2013;

Dondapati Srinivasa Rao v. State of Telangana , 2018 (1) ALD Criminal 970;

Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar , (2009) 8 SCC 751;

Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736;

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS, 2023”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No. 285 of 2021 registered at Maheswaram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 5 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as under Section 3(1)(f) and (g) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “SC/ST Act”).

Heard Mr. Tupakula Nikhil, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. M. Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defacto complainant; and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.2/State.

The relevant facts, briefly stated, are that disputes have arisen in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.106/A/2/1 situated at Ameerpet, Maheswaram. It is alleged that on 12.08.2016, the father and brother of respondent No.1 executed a registered sale deed in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 4, purportedly on the strength of a declaration-cum-undertaking-cum-no objection said to have been executed by respondent No.1 and others. Subsequently, respondent No.1 instituted O.S. No. 420 of 2018 seeking partition and separate possession, which remains pending. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed their written statement on 12.07.2018 referring to the said declaration document. Thereafter, on 29.08.2018, accused Nos. 1 to 4 alienated the subject property in favour of the present petitioners, who thereby became subsequent purchasers. The petitioners were later impleaded as parties in I.A. No. 557 of 2020, which was allowed on 14.09.2021 without objection from respondent No.1. They have also instituted O.S. No.111 of 2021 seeking perpetual injunction. During the pendency of these civil proceedings, respondent No.1 lodged the present complaint alleging commission of various criminal offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the proceedings are liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, as there are no specific allegations attracting the offences alleged, including those under the SC/ST Act. It is submitted that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, having acquired the property through registered sale deeds in 2018 from accused Nos. 1 to 4. They were not parties to the alleged forged declaration dated 12.08.2016, which forms the substratum of the complaint, and are thus, strangers to the alleged acts of forgery. It is further contended that the allegations of fabrication are specifically attributed only to accused Nos. 1 to 4, and no role is assigned to the petitioners either in the creation or use of forged documents.

It is argued that, in the absence of material indicating that the petitioners forged or used forged documents as genuine, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 467 and 471 IPC are not satisfied. Likewise, Section 4