Case: M. SRIKANTH Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeals are as under: The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed in the original complaint. The Respondent No. 2, Fatima Hasna, in the criminal appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9156 of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ?the complainant?), is the sister of accused No. 1, Akramuddin Hasan. The complainant had filed a private complaint against nine persons including accused No. 1. The allegations in the said complaint in a nutshell is that the house bearing No. 3¬5-1102 at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, originally belonged to Afzaluddin Hassan, the father of the complainant, who died on 28.05.1996. Afzaluddin Hassan, possessed the same upon death of his mother, Khairunnisa Begum Saheba as per the oral gift dated 12.12.1966 and deed of confirmation of the said oral gift. It was the case of the complainant, that upon death of her father, Afzaluddin Hassan, the said property was inherited by her as well as her three sisters and accused No. 1, her brother. It is further averred in the complaint, that her father had entered into a development agreement on 25.05.1989 with M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. However, the same was cancelled during his lifetime. It is further averred by her that after the death of her father, accused No. 3, Abid Rassol Khan, tried to trespass into the property and for that on her complaint, Crime No. 159/1996 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 380 of the IPC on 14.06.1996.It is further averred by her that, thereafter, she came to know about the existence of a document thereby assigning the rights by M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M/s NRI Housing Company Pvt. Ltd., represented through accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan. For the said incident another complaint vide Crime No. 177/1996, came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC against seven persons including M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and accused No. 3 in the present case. With regard to the said cause of action, the complainant had also filed Original Suit No. 1989/1996 against accused No. 3 and others for permanent injunction. The complainant?s sisters had filed O.S. No. 1403/1999 against M/s Banjara Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. of which accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan, was the Managing Director. According to the complainant, certain interim orders were also passed in the said original suits.It is further the case of the complainant in the complaint, that her brother accused No. 1, Akramuddin Hasan, who had falsely created a will in Urdu purported to be executed by their paternal grandmother, Khairunnisa Begum Saheba, in favour of their parents Afzaluddin Hassan and Liaquathunnisa Begum for their lifetime and vested remainder to accused No. 1. It is the case of the complainant, that the said will is registered and said to have been executed on 02.04.1950. Further, it is the case, that accused No. 1 had also created another forged and fabricated document styled as deed of confirmation (Hiba Bil Musha) dated 08.03.1990 vide which the property is orally gifted to accused No. 1 on 29.08.1989 and also handed over physical possession thereof.It is further the case of the complainant, that accused No. 1, posing himself to be the owner of the premises, on the basis of the alleged oral will and deed of confirmation, created a registered lease on 01.12.2008, bearing document No. 3107/2008 permitting accused No. 4 to sub¬lease the said land in favour of accused No. 5, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ( ?HPCL?). Accused No. 6 and accused No. 9 are the employees/officers of accused No. 5 ¬ HPCL whereas, accused Nos. 7 and 8 are the attesting witnesses. On the basis of the said complaint, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the registration of an FIR on 24.11.2010.It appears, that various criminal petitions came to be filed before the High Court. Criminal Petition No. 6047/2013 was filed by accused No. 7, Khaja Mohiuddin and accused No. 8, G. V. Prasad. Criminal Petition No. 6064/2013 came to be filed by accused No. 3, Abid Rasool Khan. Criminal Petition No. 6609/2013 came to be filed by accused No. 4, M. Srikanth, who is the appellant in the criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9156/2017. Criminal Petition No. 8743/2013 was filed by accused No. 5 - HPCL and its officers, accused No. 6, S.K. Srui and accused No. 9, R. Umapathi. By the impugned Order, the High Court allowed the Criminal Petitions of all the applicants except accused Nos. 3 and 4.Being aggrieved by the dismissal of his petition, accused No. 4, so also the original complainant, being aggrieved by the impugned Order by which the petitions of accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been allowed, have approached this Court.

Reasoning: 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.