HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1796 OF 2008 DATE: 12-08-2011 BETWEEN: A. Ganesh. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. AND O. Kesavulu Naidu and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.1796 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused (For short, ‘the accused’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.113 of 2007 on the file of Puthalapattu Police Station, Chittoor District registered for offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioner is the Accused, the Respondent No. 1 is the De-facto Complainant in the F.I.R. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the First Information Report. 3. The prosecution story is that I.A. No.184 of 2007 in O.S. No.466 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, was filed by the Respondent No.1/de-facto complainant seeking temporary injunction against the defendants therein in respect of his property scheduled therein and obtained the relief and subsequently he filed I.A. No.185 of 2007 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the land and accordingly, the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, appointed an Advocate Commissioner directing him to note down the physical features of the land with the assistance of a qualified surveyor and the Accused working as Surveyor in Puthalapattu Mandal filed a false plan showing that a road was passing through the land of the Respondent No.1/defacto complainant with an evil intention and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the Accused that as per the advocate Commissioner’s report filed in that Interlocutory Application, in fact, the road in question has been in existence in the land and unless there is a clear finding in that context with regards to the complicity of the accused given by the civil Court, filing of the Criminal case is not tenable and hence the proceedings in Crime No.113 of 2007 on the file of Puthalapattu police station, Chittoor District are liable to be quashed. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings in Crime No.113 of 2007 on the file of the said police station? 6. Section 193 Cr.P.C. provides : “Punishment for false evidence: - Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall be liable to fine.” 7. I have gone through the record. It is also represented that in fact the Suit has been pending. Therefore, in that suit a finding is to be given basing upon relevant evidence to be adduced as to whether a false report or map was given by the accused with reference to the existence of the road in the land of the Respondent No.1/de-facto complainant. 8. It is important that Section 193 I.P.C. pastulates that fabrication of document for the purpose of using it in a judicial proceeding is a crime and therefore unless there is clear judicial finding in that context the question of application of the same provision does not arise at all. 9. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the case was filed prematurely and hence the proceedings in Crime No.113 of 2007 are liable to be quashed. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.113 of 2007 on the file of Puthalapattu Police Station, Chittoor District, further observing that subject to the findings given in the Suit, the Respondent No.1/defacto complainant can renew his application for prosecuting the accused. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 12-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 112 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1796 OF 2008 August, 12, 2011 DSH