Case: M. SRIKANTH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

no reference with regard to the other proceedings. Accused No. 4 has been impleaded as a party-defendant in O.S. No. 506 of 2001 only on 30.10.2009. 22. O.S. No. 239 of 2004 has already been filed by the complainant against her brother, accused No. 1 and her three sisters inter alia for partition and separate possession which is stated to be pending. As such, the documents alleged to be fraudulent in the complaint will fall for consideration in the said suit. A possibility of contradictory finding in civil proceeding as against criminal proceedings cannot be ruled out. Though, the complainant had filed Writ Petition Nos. 23017/2009 and 23672/2009 to restrain construction on the plot in question, the same was dismissed on 28.10.2009. However, there is no mention with regard to the same in the complaint. This Court in Sardool Singh vs. Nasib Kaur (1987) Supp. SCC 146 observed as follows: ?2. A civil suit between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the respondent is that no will was executed whereas the contention of the appellants is that a will has been executed by the testator. A case for grant of probate is also pending in the court of learned District Judge, Rampur. The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the validity of the will. The matter is sub judice in the aforesaid two cases in civil courts. At this juncture the respondent cannot therefore be permitted to institute a criminal prosecution on the allegation that the will is a forged one. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper to permit the respondent to prosecute the appellants on this allegation when the validity of the will is being tested before a civil court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court, and quash the criminal proceedings pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh in the case entitled Smt Nasib Kaur v. Sardool Singh. This will not come in the way of instituting appropriate proceedings in future in case the civil court comes to the conclusion that the will is a forged one. We of course refrain from expressing any opinion as regards genuineness or otherwise of the Will in question as there is no occasion to do so and the question is wide open before the lower courts.? 23. It is further to be noted, that the complainant and her sisters executed an agreement of sale¬cum-irrevocable specific power of attorney on 20.03.2015 in favour of one Mohd. Khalid Shareef. Various litigations have also been filed with regard to the installation of the petrol pump and grant of N.O.C. etc. The complaint was sent to the police for registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2010. In its final report dated 30.08.2017, the police has opined that no material had surfaced to show any conspiracy during investigation. 24. The learned Judge himself in Paragraph 8, after observing that it is nobodies case that the signatures on the documents in question are forged or anybody has impersonated for the purpose of cheating, goes on to observe thus: ?8…..The allegation in nutshell in this regard is that accused No. 1 is not the absolute owner of the properties, but for one of the co¬owner or co-sharer along with the de facto complainant and other sisters of them and he falsely claimed as if he is the owner for purpose of cheating by using as if genuine forged and fabricated documents of so called will and so called deed of confirmation. The so called will is of the year 1950 and the so called deed of confirmation is of year 1989¬1990 and the alleged oral gift prior to that is of 1966….? 25. We fail to understand, as to how after observing the aforesaid, the learned Judge could have refused to quash the proceedings against accused No. 4. Not only that, but on the basis of the said observations, the learned Judge himself has observed that it will not be in the interest of justice to permit the Police authorities to arrest the accused for the purposes of investigation. We are of the considered view, that the learned Judge, having found that the entire allegations with regard to forgery and fabrication and accused No. 1 executing the lease deed on the basis of the said forged and fabricated documents were only against accused No. 1, ought to have exercised his jurisdiction to quash the proceedings qua accused No. 4 also. We find that the learned Judge ought to have applied the same parameters to the present accused No. 4, which had been applied to the other accused whose applications were allowed. 26. Insofar as the criminal appeals arising out of the special leave petitions filed by the original complainant is concerned, we absolutely find no merit in the appeals. The learned single Judge has rightly found that there was no material to proceed against accused No. 5 – HPCL and its officers accused Nos. 6 and 9 as also accused Nos. 7 and 8, who have been roped in, only because they were the attesting witnesses. The learned single Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 27. Insofar as original accused No. 4 is concerned, we have no hesitation to hold, that his case is covered by categories (1) and (3) carved out by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). As already discussed hereinabove, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, there is no material to proceed further against accused No. 4. We are of the considered view, that continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No. 4, M. Srikanth, would amount to nothing else but an abuse of process of law. As such, his appeal deserves to be allowed.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]19. The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 runs into 26 pages and 26 paragraphs. As already discussed hereinabove, it reveals a disputed property claim based on inheritance between the complainant, her sisters and her brother, accused No. 1. A perusal of the complaint would further reveal, that the complainant also disputes with regard to the area of the property including the manner of its devolution upon the parents of the complainant and her competing interest with that of her siblings. There is not even a whisper in the complaint that the present appellant, i.e., accused No. 4 was fully aware that accused No. 1 was not the sole beneficiary by inheritance and that the property had devolved upon the complainant and her sisters. Also there is nothing to show that knowing this he has collusively entered into the lease agreement with accused No. 1, by creating a false and fabricated will. Though, there is a mention with regard to conspiracy, but there is not even a suggestion with regard to manner of such conspiracy.Upon perusal of the complaint itself, it would reveal that the father of the complainant and accused No. 3 had himself entered into a development agreement which subsequently came to be cancelled during his lifetime. It would also reveal, that only after the lease in question was executed in favour of the appellant, the complainant has raised all these issues. We are of the considered view, that the issues raised reflect a civil dispute with regard to inheritance amongst the legal heirs. We fail to understand as to how a dispute with regard to the inheritance under a will and deed of confirmation can be decided in a criminal proceeding. We find, that the same can be done only in an appropriate civil proceeding. Not only that, the civil proceedings with that regard are already instituted by various parties including the complainant.It will be relevant to refer that though in the complaint, the complainant had mentioned about pendency of O.S. No. 1989 of 1996 against accused No. 3 and O.S. No. 1403 of 1999 against M/s Banjara Construction Pvt. Ltd., there is no reference with regard to the other proceedings. Accused No. 4 has been impleaded as a party-defendant in O.S. No. 506 of 2001 only on 30.10.2009.O.S. No. 239 of 2004 has already been filed by the complainant against her brother, accused No. 1 and her three sisters inter alia for partition and separate possession which is stated to be pending. As such, the documents alleged to be fraudulent in the complaint will fall for consideration in the said suit. A possibility of contradictory finding in civil proceeding as against criminal proceedings cannot be ruled out. Though, the complainant had filed Writ Petition Nos. 23017/2009 and 23672/2009 to restrain construction on the plot in question, the same was dismissed on 28.10.2009. However, there is no mention with regard to the same in the complaint.It is further to be noted, that the complainant and her sisters executed an agreement of sale¬cum-irrevocable specific power of attorney on 20.03.2015 in favour of one Mohd. Khalid Shareef. Various litigations have also been filed with regard to the installation of the petrol pump and grant of N.O.C. etc. The complaint was sent to the police for registration of an FIR and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 24.11.2010. In its final report dated 30.08.2017, the police has opined that no material had surfaced to show any conspiracy during investigation.We fail to understand, as to how after observing the aforesaid, the learned Judge could have refused to quash the proceedings against accused No. 4. Not only that, but on the basis of the said observations, the learned Judge himself has observed that it will not be in the interest of justice to permit the Police authorities to arrest the accused for the purposes of investigation. We are of the considered view, that the learned Judge, having found that the entire allegations with regard to forgery and fabrication and accused No. 1 executing the lease deed on the basis of the said forged and fabricated documents were only against accused No. 1, ought to have exercised his jurisdiction to quash the proceedings qua accused No. 4 also. We find that the learned Judge ought to have applied the same parameters to the present accused No. 4, which had been applied to the other accused whose applications were allowed.Insofar as the criminal appeals arising out of the special leave petitions filed by the original complainant is concerned, we absolutely find no merit in the appeals. The learned single Judge has rightly found that there was no material to proceed against accused No. 5 – HPCL and its officers accused Nos. 6 and 9 as also accused Nos. 7 and 8, who have been roped in, only because they were the attesting witnesses. The learned single Judge has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Insofar as original accused No. 4 is concerned, we have no hesitation to hold, that his case is covered by categories (1) and (3) carved out by this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra). As already discussed hereinabove, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, there is no material to proceed further against accused No. 4. We are of the considered view, that continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No. 4, M. Srikanth, would amount to nothing else but an abuse of process of law. As such, his appeal deserves to be allowed.This Court, in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 after considering all its earlier judgments, has laid down principles which are required to be taken into consideration by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings.It could thus be seen, that this Court has held, that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. Further, it has been held that where the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose any offence and make out a case against the accused, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings.