AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-1, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.387 of 2017 of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant lodged a report on 30.05.2017 stating that as per the instructions of the Government, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, has directed the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector, Sherlingampally to handover the possession of land in respect of Sy.Nos.100 and 101 of Miyapur Village, which is a Government land, to HMDA for safe custody. Accordingly, on 20.08.2003, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar, Serilingampally, has delivered the possession to an extent of Ac.445.34 gts., out of total extent of Ac.550.39 gts., in Sy.No.100 and 101 of Miyapur Village of Serilingampally Mandal under cover of panchanama. Since then the HMDA is protecting the land by deploying private security guards. In this land, certain land grabbers have encroached the said Government land and the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, has filed a land grabbing case against the land grabbers in the Special Court of the Land Grabbing. In turn, the Special Court ordered to evict the encroachers from the said land. Aggrieved by the said eviction order, the land grabbers have filed W.P.No.1889 of 1998 before the High Court. After disposal of the Writ Petition, the land grabbers have approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP Nos.14917 of 2003, 14928 of 2003 and other (16) cases. The Apex Court has ordered "status quo" in favour of the Government and all the SLPs are pending for adjudication. In the remaining land of Ac.105.19 gts., the colonies such as Prashanthi Nagar, Deepthi Srinagar, Ayyappa Nagar, M.A.Nagar, Stalin Nagar, PA Nagar and Dharmapuri Kshethram have been established by encroaching the land.
It is also stated in the complaint that in Sy.Nos.20 and 28, Government Poramboke land of Miyapur Village, to an extent of Ac.376.00, out of a total extent of Ac.636.39 gts., was handed over to the then HUDA by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings No.E3/22095/1980 for development and mobilization of resources, out of which in an extent of Ac.271.00 was developed by the HMDA and auctioned by developing layout. The balance extent Ac.105.00 gts., is in possession of the HMDA. In this process, an extent of Ac.23.00 was auctioned in favour of the highest bidder Manthri Developers. The net balance extent of Ac.82.00 is in the process for development of ICBT project and etc. Out of the remaining extent of Ac.260.13 gts., an extent of 104.00 was acquired and handed over to Metro Rail and about Ac.10.00 gts., is covered by Nadigadda Thanda and Subhash Chandra Bose Nagar and the remaining land is vacant land and is in the control of Revenue Department. It is further stated that Sy.Nos.44 and 45 consists of a total extent of Ac.300.14 gts., is the Government land as per the Khasra Pahani and certain people have encroached the land and established colonies, however, the Government has got interest in this land.
It is also stated in the complaint that on verification of records obtained from the Sub-Registrar Office, Kukatpally, it is to inform that P.Sanjeeva Parthasarathi (petitioner), who is the Director of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited, in collusion with other persons by name P.V.S.Sharma, who is also one of the Directors of M/s. Trinity Infra Structure and General Manager of Goldstone Infra Tech, got G.P.A. from Smt. Ameerunnisa Begum and (7) others, who are claiming the said land, have executed four documents in favour of M/s. Trinity Infra Structure Limited, M/s. Suvishal Power Generation Limited and M/s. Gold Stone Infra Tech, by transferring the Government land, which was allotted to HMDA in Sy.Nos.20, 28, 100 and 101 of Miyapur Village, Serilingampally, R.R. District at S.R.O., Kukatpally, as detailed below:
Sl.
No.
Village Name
Survey
No.
Extent
Ac. Gts.
Registered
document No.
1.
Miyapur Village
101
231.00
472/B-IV/2016
2.
Miyapur Village
20
109.18
474/B-IV/2016
3.
Miyapur Village
28
145.26
475/B-IV/2016
4.
Miyapur Village
100
207.00
476/B-IV/2016
5.
Miyapur Village
45
98.00
473/B-IV/2016
6.
Miyapur Village
44
25.00
477/B-IV/2016
7.
Miyapur Village
Irrevocable GPA
GPA 14/IV/2016
The above documents were registered by Srinivasa Rao, S.R.O., Kukatpally, by violating the provisions of Rule 22 (A) of the Registration Act, 1908 as amendment Act 19 of 2007 in collusion with P.Sanjeeva Parthasarathi (Petitioner), P.V.R. Sharma and Srinivasa Rao, without knowledge of the Government of Telangana, represented by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and his subordinates/HMDA, who is the owner and possessor of the said Government lands, thereby they conspired criminally executed registered sale deeds for Government land under the guise of patta land and cheated the Government/HMDA though the lands are under sub judice. All the above said persons and Directors of the said (3) companies including Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, involved in the conspiracy as it is valuable land and thereby caused huge loss to the Government as well as HMDA. Therefore, prayed to investigate into the matter and take appropriate legal action against all the involved persons. Basing on the said complaint, a case in Crime No.387 of 2017 of Kukatpally Police Station has been registered against the petitioner/A-1 and others for the aforesaid offences. The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A-1, to quash the proceedings against him in the above crime.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/A-1; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for Home for the 2nd respondent and also perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has sold the Sanad Rights relating to the lands in Miyapur to A-7 company by way of registered deed. He also submits that basing on the same set of allegations, on the complaint made by the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, another case in Crime No.366 of 2017 was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the Court concerned, which was numbered as C.C.No.1070 of 2017. Therefore, he submits that there cannot be two F.I.Rs. on the same set of allegations/offences and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in T.T.Antony vs. State Of Kerala & Others (2001) 6 SCC 181, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed
Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that F.I.R. cannot be quashed since the investigation is at threshold. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
A perusal of the material available on record would show that a case in Crime No.366 of 2017 of Kukatpally Police Station, was registered, on 25.05.2017, against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 418, 419, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 82 of the Registration Act. The allegations in the First Information Report in Crime No.366 of 2017 would show that A-4 therein executed four documents in favour of M/s Suvishal Power Generation Ltd.,, by transferring the land belongs to the Government in Sy.Nos.20, 28, 100 and 101 of Miyapur Village, registered by the Sub-Registrar Office, Kukatpally, vide documents viz. (1) No.472/IV/2016 for Sy.No.101 of Ac.231.00 gts., (2) 474/IV/2016 for Sy.No.20 of Ac.109.18 gts., (3) 475/IV/2016 for Sy.No.28, of Ac.145.26 gts., and (4) 476/IV/2016 for Sy.No.100 of Ac.207.00 gts., by violating the provisions of the Registration Act and thereby cheated the Government. After conducting investigation, charge sheet has been filed, which was numbered as C.C.No.1070 of 2017 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
The gist of the First Information Report in the present crime is that on verification of records obtained from the Sub-Registrar Office, Kukatpally, it is revealed that P.Sanjeeva Parthasarathi (petitioner herein), who is the Director of M/s. Trinity Infra Ventures Limited, in collusion with other persons by name P.V.S.Sharma, who is also one of the Directors of M/s. Trinity Infra Structure and General Manager of Goldstone Infra Tech, got G.P.A. from Smt. Ameerunnisa Begum and (7) others, who are claiming the said land, have executed four documents in favour of M/s. Trinity Infra Structure Limited, M/s. Suvishal Power Generation Limited and M/s. Gold Stone Infra Tech, by transferring the Government land, which was allotted to HMDA in Sy.Nos.20, 28, 100 and 101 of Miyapur Village, Sherilingampally, R.R. District at S.R.O., Kukatpally, as detailed below:
Sl.
No.
Village Name
Survey
No.
Extent
Ac. Gts.
Registered
document No.
1.
Miyapur Village
101
231.00
472/B-IV/2016
2.
Miyapur Village
20
109.18
474/B-IV/2016
3.
Miyapur Village
28
145.26
475/B-IV/2016
4.
Miyapur Village
100
207.00
476/B-IV/2016
5.
Miyapur Village
45
98.00
473/B-IV/2016
6.
Miyapur Village
44
25.00
477/B-IV/2016
7.
Miyapur Village
Irrevocable GPA
GPA 14/IV/2016
The above documents were registered by Srinivasa Rao, S.R.O., Kukatpally, by violating the provisions of Rule 22 (A) of the Registration Act, 1908 as amendment Act 19 of 2007 in collusion with P.Sanjeeva Parthasarathi (Petitioner), P.V.R. Sharma and Srinivasa Rao. The above documents were registered, without knowledge of the Government of Telangana, represented by the Collector, Ranga Reddy District and his subordinates/HMDA, who is the owner and possessor of the said Government lands, thereby they executed registered sale deeds for Government land under the guise of patta land and cheated the Government/HMDA though the lands are under sub judice. All the above said persons and Directors of the said (3) companies including Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, involved in the conspiracy as it is valuable land and thereby caused huge loss to the Government as well as HMDA.
Further, the Apex Court has been pleased to lay down the law that a second F.I.R. in respect of an offence or different offences committed in the course of same transaction is not only impermissible, but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In T.T.Antony vs. State Of Kerala & Others (1 supra), in paragraph Nos.19, 20 and 27, the Apex Court held as under:-
"19. The scheme of CR.P.C. is that an officer in charge of a police station has to commence investigation as provided in Section 156 or 157 Cr.P.C. On the basis of entry of the first information report, on coming to know of the commission of a cognizable offence. On completion of investigation and on the basis of the evidence collected, he has to form an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, even after filing such a report, if he comes into possession of further information or material, he need not register a fresh FIR; he is empowered to make further investigation, normally with the leave of the court, and where during further investigation he collects further evidence, oral or documentary, he is obliged to forward the same with one of more further reports; this is the import of sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C.
From the above discussion it follows that under the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 Cr.P.C., only the earliest or the first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 Cr.P.C. Thus, there can be no second FIR and consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other connected offences found to have been committed in the course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 Cr.P.C.
A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C Empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It would clearly be beyond the purview of the Sections 154 and 156 CR.P.C, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173 (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."
The record further discloses that the question of title of the subject land i.e. "whether the land in Miyapur Village is private land or Government land is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. Nos.10699 of 2013 and batch", which is an admitted fact by both the parties concerned. Further, the contents of the F.I.R. itself disclose that the Tahsildar, Serilingampally, has filed a land grabbing case against the land grabbers in the Special Court of the Land Grabbing. In turn, the Special Court ordered to evict the encroachers from the said land. Aggrieved by the said eviction order, the land grabbers have filed W.P.No.1889 of 1998 before the High Court. After disposal of the Writ Petition, the land grabbers have approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP Nos.14917 of 2003, 14928 of 2003 and other (16) cases. The Apex Court has ordered "status quo" in favour of the Government and all the SLPs are pending for adjudication.
In Devendra v. State of U.P. (2009) 7 SCC 495, the Apex Court held as under:
"A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."
In Joseph Salvaraja vs. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 7 SCC 59 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
"Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not.
In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the Appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the Appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation.
The Appellant cannot be allowed to go through the rigmarole of a criminal prosecution for long number of years, even when admittedly a civil suit has already been filed against the Appellant by the Complainant-Respondent No. 4, and is still subjudice. In the said suit, the Appellant is at liberty to contest the same on grounds available to him in accordance with law as per the leave granted by Trial Court. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not been able to show that at any material point of time there was any contract, much less any privity of contract between the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 - the Complainant. There was no cause of action to even lodge an FIR against the Appellant as neither the Complainant had to receive the money nor he was in any way instrumental to telecast "GOD TV" in the central areas of Ahmedabad. He appears to be totally a stranger to the same. Appellant's prosecution would only lead to his harassment and humiliation, which cannot be permitted in accordance with the principles of law.
In Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another (2009) 8 SCC 751 Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:
"This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above, I am of the considered view that continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-1 will be a futile exercise and would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.387 of 2017, dated 30.05.2017, of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, against the petitioner/A-1 are hereby quashed.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.