THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.5975 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.789 of 2007 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy district. The petitioner is the sole Accused in C.C.No.789 of 2007. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Hayathnagar mandal, Ranga Reddy district addressed a Letter No.C/1651/2007 dated 18.4.2007 to the Station House Officer, Vanasthalpuram against the Accused stating that the Accused who was the resident of Theegalpally, Kodair Mandal, Mahabubnagar district had been selling Government land in Sy.No.212/2 situated at Turkayamjal village by virtue of registered G.P.A.No.420 of 1986 dated 4.8.1986 illegally and therefore requested to take necessary action against the Accused. Based on the said report, the Police registered the case in Cr.No.226 of 2007 under Section 420 IPC against the Accused and filed charge sheet before the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar and the same was numbered as C.C.No.789 of 2007. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the allegations made against the accused that he involved in selling the Government land by virtue of the registered GPA dated 4.8.1986 is not true and it is a private land and the complaint against the accused was lodged after a lapse of 19 years, and hence is barred by limitation. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to uphold the claim of the accused. In this context, it is necessary to consider Section 468 IPC, which reads as under: “Forgery for purpose of cheating Whoever commits forgery, intending that the1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” Whereas as per the record of the prosecution, the land in question happened to be a Government land, the accused has filed a copy of adangal for the year 1983-84, which shows that it is a private land and hence there is a question as to whether the copy of the adangal filed is true or not. Because as per the record which includes statements of various persons recorded by the MRO, it happened to be a Government property, unless necessary evidence is recorded, it is difficult to say that it is a private property or Government property. Further, it is important that already the corresponding charge sheet was filed and trial of the case is to be commenced for necessary decision. The prosecution and the learned Magistrate should take all necessary measures for the ascertainment of the question as to whether it is a Government property or private property. By virtue of the decision in KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1], there can be both civil and criminal liability in respect of an issue and both are to be decided independently. If there is a question of ownership, it is to be decided exhaustively even in a criminal case. The Courts are not just post offices and the Presiding Officers of the Courts should actively participate in administering proper justice without shirking their responsibility. They are not supposed to dispose of the criminal matters just basing on some evidence recorded when they got opportunity to take necessary steps for adducing necessary further evidence for proper or correct disposal of the cases. In view of the discussion made above, I see no merits in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed and ultimately is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: .10.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.1547 of 2007 .10.2011 [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624