HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.3831 of 2010 Date: December 16, 2011 Between: Mohd. Riyazuddin Imran, S/o.Mohd. Ejazuddin and others … Petitioners And Mohd. Ayazuddin, S/o.Mohd. Azizuddin and another … Respondents Order: This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in Cr.No.533 of 2009 on the file of Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. The aforesaid crime is registered on a complaint forwarded by the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 3. 1st respondent herein is the de-facto complainant. He filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., against the petitioners herein with the following averments: He is the absolute owner and possessor of house property bearing municipal Nos.10-2-317/49, 10-2- 317/49/B, 10-2-317/50 and 10-2-317/50/A, totally admeasuring 418 sq. yards, situated at Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. His father was the lessee of the said property which belongs to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. His father died in the year 1978, leaving behind his wife, 5 sons and 2 daughters. It is the case of the 1st respondent that he constructed upper floor in the year 1981 in the said premises out of his own funds and in view of the orders issued by the Government converting lease-hold property into free-hold property, a sale deed was registered by the APHB in his favour. It is alleged that as he has become the owner of the said property, all his brothers and sisters vacated the said premises and removed all their belongings except the 1st petitioner/A-1, i.e. the son of the elder brother of the 1st respondent. It is stated that he permitted the 1st petitioner/A-1 to stay in a portion of the property, he being a bachelor, to take care of the entire property. In the complaint, it is further alleged that when he and his wife have requested A-1 to vacate the premises, he filed a suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.4766 of 2008 on the file of the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and he spoke falsehood which attracts the offence of perjury. Against petitioners 2 and 3, who are in occupation of small portions in the premises as tenants, alleging default, 1st respondent filed R.C.Nos.100 and 99 of 2009 respectively on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 Act, in which they have denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. On the aforesaid facts, alleging that all the petitioners herein, who are A-1 to A-3, have created documents, committed offences of perjury, forgery, breach of trust, cheating and criminal conspiracy, the 1st respondent filed the private complaint. When it was referred to the Police, a case in Cr.No.533 of 2009 was registered on the file of Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. 4. In this criminal petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no case is made out for registering the crime for the offences alleged against the petitioners. It is submitted that when the 1st respondent was interfering with the possession of the property in question, the 1st petitioner has filed suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.4766 of 2008, which is pending before the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad against the 1st petitioner seeking relief of declaration and eviction and to declare him as the absolute owner of the very same property, which is pending consideration. It is submitted that even against petitioners 2 and 3, he filed R.C.Nos.100 and 99 of 2009 for eviction, which are also pending consideration. It is submitted that the dispute is essentially of civil nature and the 1st respondent-complainant himself has filed a suit seeking declaratory rights of ownership and recovery of possession of the very same property and by making false allegations, he filed the complaint. It is alleged that when serious civil disputes are pending; only to pressurize the parties, the present complaint is filed and there is no basis for the allegations of committing perjury, forgery and breach of trust, as alleged against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments, relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.S.Ahlawat v. State of Haryana and Anr.[1] and Chandrapal Singh and others v. Maharaj Singh and Anr.[2] 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in view of the allegations made against the petitioners, it is a matter for investigation by the Police and no case is made out by the petitioners to quash the proceedings at this stage. 7. I have perused a copy of the private complaint filed by the 1st respondent and a copy of the plaint in the suit in O.S.No.185 of 2009 filed by the 1st respondent in which he sought declaration and recovery of possession of the property which is the subject matter of the complaint. As per the averments of the complaint, it is clear that the property in question was originally leased out to the father of the 1st respondent and after his death, all the brothers and sisters of the 1st respondent have given no-objection to register the property in the name of the 1st respondent. Further, the fact that the 1st petitioner was permitted to continue in a portion of the property in question is not in dispute. Alleging interference by the 1st respondent, at first instance, the 1st petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.4766 of 2008. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed a comprehensive suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the entire property. Even against the tenants, i.e. petitioners 2 and 3, the 1st respondent filed R.Cs., alleging default on their part in paying rents. From a copy of the plaint and the petitions filed under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 Act, against petitioners 2 and 3, it is clear that there are serious civil disputes with regard to ownership and title of the property in question. At the same time, the 1st respondent himself has filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and unless such rights are adjudicated in the said suit before the competent civil court, there is no basis for the offences alleged against the petitioners under Sections 196, 199, 468, 420, 120(b) IPC read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Mainly, it is alleged in the suit in O.S.No.4766 of 2008 filed by the 1s t petitioner, which is pending on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, that the 1st petitioner on oath has falsely stated that he is in occupation of the whole building and falsely claimed ownership of the building and the same amounts to committing offence of perjury and breach of trust with an intention to cheat the de-facto complainant. If any such documents are filed during trial in the civil court, it is always open to the 1st respondent to take steps by following the procedure as contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., but when such civil proceedings are pending, in the suits filed by the 1st respondent as well as the 1st petitioner, it appears there is no prima facie case against the petitioners so as to proceed with the investigation for the offences as alleged. 8. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners referred above, would not render much assistance to the case of the petitioners, but as this Court is of the view that the dispute is essentially of civil nature and in view of pendency of the suits filed by the parties, allowing investigation on the offences as alleged against the petitioners at this stage is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Further, when the matter is ceased up before the civil court on the rights of the parties, allowing investigation on the offences as alleged will lead to miscarriage of justice and thus this Court is of the view that this is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in Cr.No.533 of 2009 on the file of Humayun Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) December 16, 2011 MRR [1] 1999 (9) Supreme 21 [2] AIR 1982 SC 1238