IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.505 and 837 of 2009 CRIMINAL PETITION No.505 of 2009 BETWEEN: C. Rajender … PETITIONER(S) And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. and another … RESPONDENT(S) CRIMINAL PETITION No.837 of 2009 BETWEEN: C. Rajender … PETITIONER(S) And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. and another … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.505 and 837 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner is one and the same in both these petitions and he filed these petitions i.e. Criminal Petition No.505 of 2009 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.18 of 2009 of Asif Nagar Police Station and Criminal Petition No.837 of 2009 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.25 of 2009 of the same police station. Petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.18 of 2009 and he is A-3 in Crime No.25 of 2009. 2. So far as registration of Crime No.25 of 2009 of Asif Nagar Police Station which was registered for an offence under Section 353 IPC, I am of the opinion that it is on the face of it illegal and cannot be sustained for this reason. It should be noted that in Criminal Petition No.505 of 2009 which is filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2009, this Court has already granted an interim stay of proceedings on 30.01.2009 and it was to be operative for a period of four weeks and it was extended later on by another six weeks. While that stay was in force, the allegations in the FIR in Crime No.25 of 2009 read that on 02.02.2009 the concerned police constable went to bring the petitioner in both these petitions from his house in order to produce him or take him before the concerned Inspector in connection with Crime No.18 of 2009. Thus, when the stay granted by this Court is in force, the concerned police ought not to have gone to the house of the petitioner in order to call him in connection with Crime No.18 of 2009 of Asif Nagar Police Station. Thus, on this ground alone, the proceedings in Crime No.25 of 2009 have to be quashed and they are accordingly quashed and thus the Criminal Petition No.837 of 2009 is allowed. 3. Criminal Petition No.505 of 2009 which is filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2009 is now taken up. The said crime has been registered on the complaint of the second respondent herein by name N. Shivarama Rao. The documents filed by the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel for the second respondent have been perused and it appears that the circumstances which led to the above dispute are these. 4. The petitioner, Sri C.Rajender, is stated to be the owner of a house property which is in question. On 19.11.2004, the petitioner is said to have executed an agreement of sale cum GPA in respect of that house property in favour of one Manoj Kumar and the recitals in the said deed also read that he delivered house property to Manoj Kumar. Thereafter the said Manoj Kumar acting as the GPA holder of Sri C.Rajender is said to have executed a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2006 in favour of one Sanjay Kumar and this Sanjay Kumar in turn is said to have executed a registered sale deed on 20.08.2007 in favour of the second respondent herein i.e. N.Shivarama Rao for the said house property. The contention of the second respondent is that since then he is in possession of the house property. But this is disputed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent also pointed out that before the second respondent purchased the property, the second respondent and Sanjay Kumar approached the petitioner and at their instance the petitioner executed an indemnity bond on 28.01.2007 and also a no objection certificate on the same date stating that he has no claim over the said property and that he has no objection for Sanjay Kumar executing a sale deed or selling it. The second respondent’s plea is it was thereafter he obtained the sale deed from Sanjay Kumar on 20.08.2007. 6. It may then be noted that some disputes broke out between the petitioner and the second respondent and the second respondent also filed O.S.No.65 of 2009 for a perpetual prohibitory injunction in the Court of IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and he also filed a temporary injunction petition i.e. I.A.No.7 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC in that suit for protection of his alleged possession over the suit property i.e. the alleged disputed house property. Ex parte interim injunction was granted in that petition but ultimately on a contest the said petition was dismissed on 05.03.2009. 7. It is seen from the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2009 that the present alleged incident is said to have occurred on 23.01.2009 at 5.30 PM and the allegations in the FIR are that when the second respondent locked the house and went out, the petitioner broke open the lock and trespassed into it and occupied it and on these allegations the said FIR is registered for an offence under Section 448 IPC. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner says that when the matter was pending in the civil Court i.e. in O.S.No.65 of 2009, the police had no business to register a case and that he never parted with the possession in favour of anybody and he continued to be in possession. The petitioner’s counsel in this connection says that notwithstanding the above documents the petitioner still continues to be in possession and his GPA holder played fraud on him. He also pointed out that ultimately the temporary injunction petition i.e. I.A.No.7 of 2009 was ultimately dismissed on 05.03.2009 and this is sufficient to show that the second respondent was not in possession of the suit house. His contention is that the whole dispute is of a civil nature and the second respondent is now trying to evict him through police by giving false first information report which is registered as Crime No.18 of 2009 and therefore it should be quashed. As already mentioned supra, this is disputed. In the course of arguments, Sri N. Pramod, appearing for the petitioner, was specifically asked about the sale deeds and especially the indemnity bond and the no objection certificate, photocopies of which have been filed and which purport to have been executed by the petitioner. Across the Bar, he stated that nothing can be pronounced by this Court now about the validity or otherwise of the said documents and their validity should be decided in a civil Court by looking the documents itself i.e. their primary evidence. The same principle applies even to the agreements of sale cum GPA and the sale deeds executed by the petitioner and his GPA. 9. Thus what emerges from the above situation and the documents is that though there is a dispute between the parties regarding the validity or otherwise of the documents relied upon by them, still there are the agreements of sale cum GPA, the indemnity bond and the no objection certificate which purport to have been executed by the petitioner Sri C.Rajender. On the face the said documents, all of which read that the petitioner has parted with the possession of the house property firstly in favour of his GPA Manoj Kumar and the subsequent sale deed executed by him which show that he parted with his possession in favour of Sri Sanjay Kumar and the sale deed executed by Sanjay Kumar which show that he parted with his possession in favour of the second respondent, the plea of the petitioner that he is still in possession of the property does not inspire confidence. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the matter is of purely civil nature. 10. The above circumstances undoubtedly show that the property which must have become very valuable now has become a bone of contention between the parties. In these circumstances, this Court basing upon the above material cannot definitely conclude that the matter is of civil nature and the complaint given by the second respondent is a false complaint and the police are trying to help him. 11. One circumstance which was relied upon by Sri N.Pramod is O.S.No.65 of 2009 was dismissed on 13.08.2010 and this shows a minus point for the second respondent. It may however be noted that the copy of the order passed in the suit would show that it was dismissed for non-prosecution. It may also be noted here that just because a suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution it does not follow that the plaintiff therein has lost title or possession over the property. It is also well settled that just because a civil suit has been filed and dismissed against one party, the police cannot take up the matter and investigate the case when a complaint is made against other party alleging an offence. Thus, in the above circumstances, it is difficult to pronounce in these proceedings that the dispute is of a total civil nature between the parties and the allegations in the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2009 are false. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court given in INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL[1] and argued basing upon the principle laid down in this decision that where the allegations in an FIR show that the dispute is of purely civil nature and that the FIR is registered to harass the accused, such FIR should be quashed. There is no dispute about this proposition. 13. However, the above circumstances show that in the face of the documents relied upon by the second respondent’s counsel it cannot be said that the dispute is of purely civil nature and hence though there is no dispute about the above proposition, the same cannot be applied here. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon a decision of this Court given in W.P.No.447 of 2009. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner herein against the police authorities who are respondents 1 to 3 therein and the 4th respondent who is the second respondent in this criminal petition for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to declare the action of the second and third respondents in that petition not to interfere with his possession of the house property in question. This writ petition was disposed of on 23.01.2009 observing that no further orders are necessary on the statement made by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that they are not interfering with the civil disputes between the parties i.e. the petitioner and the second respondent herein. It should be noted that the FIR in Crime No.18 of 2009 is again registered on 23.01.2009 at 7.30 p.m. and the incident is alleged to have occurred at 5.30 p.m. Sri N.Pramod points out that soon after the above writ petition was got dismissed the second respondent and the police deliberately foisted this case against him on the same date in the evening. It is difficult to accept this contention right now. The complaint given by the second respondent would show that the incident occurred at 5.00 p.m. on 23.01.2009 and thereafter the case was registered at 7.30 p.m. 15. It may be noted that the matter is still at the stage of FIR and the police have to investigate and to find out which version is truthful i.e. whether the version of the petitioner or the version of the second respondent. It has already been seen supra that having regard to the documents this Court cannot come to any conclusion in these proceedings and the matter is to be investigated and that can be done only by the police. Hence, in the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is no ground to quash the proceedings in FIR No.18 of 2009 of Asif Nagar Police Station. 16. It is brought to my notice by the second respondent’s counsel that the petitioner was arrested on 23.01.2009 in the evening and he was released on bail on 24.01.2009. The offence under Section 448 is bailable. The petitioner’s counsel says that he has no instructions on this aspect. However, even if the petitioner has not been arrested so far, he is granted one month time to make an application before the appropriate authority to obtain bail and till then the police shall not arrest him and this order is made in the peculiar circumstances of this case which are already mentioned supra. It is also made clear that the investigating police officer shall do the investigation and complete it without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made in this order. 17. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Criminal Petition No.837 of 2009 is allowed and Criminal Petition No.505 of 2009 is dismissed. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 24th December, 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2008 SC 251