HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5320 of 2007 Between: P.Urmila and another …. Petitioners and The Station House Officer and others …. Respondents This court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5320 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.682 of 2004 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, arising out of crime No.223 of 1997 of Bowenpally P.S. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 177 and 420 IPC r/w 82 and 83 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Brief facts of the case are that the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally, lodged a complaint with the police, Bowenpally, stating that the 1st petitioner made a false statement before the registering officer with regard to plot No.87, which was bought by the 1st petitioner’s father from the Military Estate Officer for 90 years lease in the name of her mother P.Anjamma and constructed a building. It was further stated in the complaint that subsequently, her mother also executed a Will deed on 05.09.1978 bequeathing her property in favour of her five sons and two daughters under registered document No.58/78 at Sub-Registrar’s Office, Marredpally. Subsequently, Smt.P.Anjamma was seriously ill and hospitalized on 03.01.1980 and she subsequently died on 04.01.1980 in a private hospital. While so, on 05.12.1980, the 1st petitioner, who is the daughter of late Anjamma, presented second Will deed of Anjamma, dated 04.01.1980, and the same was registered in the year 1988 as document No.46/88, after a delay of eight years. It was further alleged in the complaint that the 1st Petitioner and others gave false statements before the Sub-Registrar to the effect that she is the only daughter of late Anjamma and concealed the fact that Anjamma had five sons and two daughters, with a mala fide intention to deprive the property to the legal heirs of late Anjamma. On receipt of the said complaint, a case in crime No.223/1997 was registered for the offence under Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Registration Act, and was investigated by the police. However, the said case was closed by the then investigating officer on 31.12.1997 and he filed a final report treating the case to be civil in nature. Thereafter, one P. Om Rao, who is the son of late Anjamma and brother of the 1st petitioner, lodged a complaint for re-investigation of the case, as the 1st petitioner committed offences under Sections 467, 471, 177 and 420 IPC. On receipt of the above complaint, the Inspector of Police obtained the opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and then permission from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North Zone, to reopen the case and thereafter submitted a report to the Court under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. requesting for according permission to collect further evidence and submit the report after investigation. Accordingly, he investigated into the matter and filed a report stating that 1st petitioner-accused No.1 has created a false Will deed on 04.01.1980, at the instigation of A2, who is no more, and got the same registered in the year 1988, after a delay of eight years, and that the 1st petitioner has given a false statement before the Sub-Registrar that she is the only daughter and legal heir of her mother late Anjamma, concealing the fact of her having five sons and two daughters, in order to deprive them the property and also executed a gift deed in respect of the said property i.e., plot No.87, West Marredpally in favour of her children namely T.K.Sridhar and Kum.T.K.Sailaja admeasuring about 600 square yards and thereby cheated P. Om Rao, P.Ganesh Rao and P.Vidya Sagar, sons of late Anjamma and her other legal heirs. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 467, 471, 177 & 420 IPC r/w Sections 82 & 83 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same and the case was numbered as C.C.No.682 of 2004, the proceedings in which are now sought to be quashed. Sri T.K.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that once final report is filed and the same was accepted by the Court, no re- investigation can be ordered. He further contends that in the instant case, the F.I.R. was registered on 18.09.1997 and final report was filed on 31.12.1997 and when the same was accepted by the Magistrate after due notice, the same cannot be reopened at the instance of the parties. He further contends that earlier also, one P. Ganesh Rao filed a private complaint before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, alleging the very same offences, against the petitioners, but as he did not evince interest in pursuing the said case, the same was dismissed for default. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. It is not in dispute that initially F.I.R.No.223 of 1997 was registered by the police, Bowenpally, for the offences under Sections 82 and 83 of the Indian Registration Act, in which a final report has been filed stating that the case is of civil nature; that the place of occurrence also falls under P.S.Marredpally; and that the Sub-Registrar, Marredpally can take appropriate action against the defaulter. The same was accepted by the Magistrate in R.C.No.2 of 1999 dated 10.02.1999 by recording the report. Later, the Investigating Officer filed a requisition before the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, stating that, after closure of the investigation, one P.Om Rao, who is the son of late Anjamma and brother of the 1st petitioner, submitted a complaint for re-investigation of the case, stating that the then Investigating Officer failed to investigate the matter properly and that the first petitioner has created a false will deed dated 4-1-1980 which was registered in the year 1988, after delay of 8 years, and that the Investigating Officer failed to investigate about the false statement given by the 1st petitioner before the Sub-Registrar, Marredpaly, to the effect that she is the only daughter and legal heir of her mother, concealing the fact of her mother having five sons and two daughters, including herself, so as to deprive them the property, which amounts to cheating, and that he also stated that the then Investigating Officer did not serve notice on the complainant while closing the case as civil in nature and that the defacto complainant came up with all documents, which were not collected earlier. The Investigating Officer, thus, sought permission of the Court to re-open the matter for further investigation. Thereupon, the Court allowed the requisition, granting permission to the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation and file the charge sheet. Pursuant thereto, the Investigating Officer further investigated into the matter and filed final report, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate as C.C. No. 682 of 2004. A perusal of the record shows that even before registration of the present F.I.R., one P. Ganesh Rao, S/o. Late P. Anjamma, filed a private petition in the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioners and others, which was referred to P.S. Marredpally and registered as Crime No.23 of 1989 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 419 and 420 IPC. However, the same was referred as civil in nature, and in the present F.I.R., there is a reference about the said fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal[1] while referring to {Dalmia v. CBI [2007 (8) SCC 770]}, held that, even after filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer is not precluded from carrying on further investigation and that the power of the Investigating Officer to make a prayer for conducting further investigation is not taken away only because a charge sheet has been filed. In the present case on hand also, even though earlier investigating officer referred the case as civil in nature, since subsequently the deprived party came up with a petition stating that the earlier investigation was not conducted on proper lines, the Investigating Officer obtained due permission of the Court for further investigation and accordingly conducted further investigation and filed final report, with which no fault can be found. This apart, the petitioners failed to implead the said P. Om Rao, at whose instance further investigation was taken up, as party respondent to this petition. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the nature of offences alleged against the petitioners, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J March 3, 2011 LMV [1] 2009(9) SCC 129