The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to in call for the records relating to the FIR No. 685/2018 on the file of uppal Police Station, Ranga Reddy District and quash the same against the petitioners A1 to ,A4 and to. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201I Petition under Sectton 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including arrest of the petitioners by Accused No. 1 to 4 in FlR.No.6B5l201B on the Uppal police Station, Ranga Reddy Dist. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the . arguments of Sri K venumadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. '1 and of Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2,3 & 4 CRIMINAL PETITION lrlO: 1648 OF 2019 Between: 11 Kuntala Suresh Kumar, S/o. Yetlaiah, Age 40 years, F/o.2-131/33, Beside Gandhi Statue, Uppal Village and Mandal, Medchal District.

2. P..Venkal .8".90V, 9/,o_, Narsimha Reddy, AEe 48 years, Occ. Carpenter F/o. H.No.2-40l1 , Uppal Village and Mandal, Medchal tjistrict.

3. K Pochaiah, S/o. Pochaiah Age 60 years, Occ. Business R/o. H.No.1-1-153, Mohan Nagar, Sringeri Colony, Saroomagar Mandal, R.R. District.

4. Namala Srinivas, S/o. Jagannadham Age 52 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No.2-3-215l18/A, Padmavathi Cotony, Uppat Viltage and Mandat, n4dOcnai District.

5. T..Raghavender Rao, S/o. Chander Rao, Age 55 years, Occ. Business R/o. H.No. Flat No.301, pteasant Homes, Gayitri t,ta!ar, jeedimetla, Medcnii District.

6. P. Satyam, S/o. Paramesha, Age 40 years, Occ_ Business R/o.H.No.4-7- '1 5/35, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. 7, K. Srikanth, Sio. Pochaiah, AS9 q0 years, Ryo. H. No. 1-1-4512315, Srungeri Colony, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Rariga Reddy Dist.

8. K. Ramchandar. Sio. Narsimha, Age 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 1_ 1-48/23l5,Srungeri Colony, MohanNagar, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy Dist. 9. Smt..Mada p!Va1at_a, Wo. ttyanarayana, Aged BB years, Occ. Housewife, F/o. H. No. 12-1-24, Lalapet, SeCunderbbad. -

10.Smt..P Sanggetha,. W/o P_. Venkatesh, Age 3g years, Occ. Housewife, (_o H No 4-7-15135, New Raghavendra Nagar, Nicharam Village, Uppai Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. 1'1 .Smt..P. Raje_shwari, Wo. P. Salyam, Age 34 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o.H. No. 4-7-1 5/35,_New Raghavendia Nagai, Nacharam Viilage, U[pii-t4"ft;i; Ranga Reddy Dist.

12.Smt. P. Veena, W/o. P. Ramu, Age 31 years, Occ. Housewife, F/o.H. No.4_7_ 'fr,flnOJf,-nanga !Sla-!, !.ew Raghavendra Nagai, Nacharam Viilage, Uppai Reddy Dist. l I

13.8. Ramulu Naik, S/o. Dudya Naik, Age 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.NO. 2-153, Uppal Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

14.8. Laxman Naik, S/o. Dudya Naik, Age 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.NO. 2-153, Uppal Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

15.8. Pratap Naik, S/o. Dudya Naik, Age 37 years, Occ. Business, F/o. H.NO. 2- 153, Uppal Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

16.Smt.P. Lalitha,, Wo. P. Venkat Reddy, Age 48 years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H. No. 2-4511 , Hanumasai Nagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

17.K. Anil Kumar,, S/o. Govardhana Chary, Age 45 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H. No.'1-7-503/1, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyd.

18.P. Venkateshwarlu,, S/o. Yadaiah, Aged 41 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-2-551113, Shanti Nagar, Uppal, Ranga Reddy Dist.

19. Smt. P.Saraswathi, W/o. P. Bhagavantha Rao, Age 42 years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. Plot No. 301, Pleasant House, Gayatri Nafar, Jeedimetla, Medchal.

20.V. Narsaiah, S/o. Late Shankaraiah, Aged 74 years, Occ. Business, Rl,/o. H.No. 12-13-34, G.F. St. No.5, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

21.N. Prasad, S/o. Kishan Rao, Age 48 years, Occ. Business, H. NO. 3-8-12, Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

22.K. Govardhan Chary, S/o. Shankariah Chary, age 68 years Occ. Carpenter, FJo. H. No. 1-7-50311 , Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

23.Smt. B. Satya Anasuya, W/o. Raja Ratam, Aged 40 years, Occ. House wife, Fl/o. H. No. 2-2-215113, Padmavathi Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Uppal, tVledchal District.

24. Deekonda Ambadas, S/o. D. Ramulu, Age 50 years, Occ. Business, Ri"/o. H. No.2-3-215l18, Padmavathi Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Uppal, Medchal District. 25. P. Giridhar Rao,, S/o. Laxman Rao, Aged S0years, Occ. Pvt. Job, Rl/o. PIot No. '101, Sri Sai Apartments, Block-A, V.V. Nagar, St. No. B, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

26.Tri Colours Properties Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by Mr. Chandan Kumar Jha as M.D. office at Zinda Tilasmath Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Accused 5 to 30 AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Cou( for the State Telangana At Hyderabad.

2. Thokata Narsing Rao, S/o. Thokata Sandaiah, Age 39 years, Occ. Business, 3. Thokata Suresh, S/o. Thokata Sandaiah, Age 38 years, Occ. Business, 4. Thokata Neelamma,, Wo. Thokata Sandaiah, Age 55 years, Occ. Coolie, All are Rl/o. 2-5-42, lndtanagar, Venkatehwara Swamy Temple Road, Uppal, Medchal District ...Respondents/Complainants Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the F.l.R. No. 685/2018 on the file of Uppal Police Station. Ranga Reddy District and quash the same against the petitioners. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2019 BETWEEN

1. Thokata Narsing Rao. S/o. Thokata Sandaiah, Age 39 years, Occ. Agricultural Coolie,

2. Thokata Suresh, S/o. Thokata Sandaiah, Age 38 years, Occ. Agricultural Coolie,

3. Thokata Neelamma,, W/o. Thokata Sandaiah, Age 55 years, Occ. Household All are Rl/o. 2-5-42. lndiranagar, Venkatehwara Swamy Temple Road, Uppal, Medchal District ...Peiitiondrs/R-Z,n-S E nj4 AND /. l|g Slale of Telangana, Rep. by its Public prosecutor, High Court for the State Telangana At Hyderabad, Uppal P.S. ...RespondenUR-1

2. Kuntala Suresh Kumar, S/o. Yellaiah, Age 40 years, R/o. 2-131133, Beside Gandhi Statue, Uppal Village and Mandal, tvledchal District.

3. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, Aged Major, Occ: Real Estate. 4. Pochaiah, S/o Not known to Plaintiff, Aged: Mjor, Occ: Real Estate. 5. Namala Sereenivas, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate.

6. Raghavender Rao, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff aged Major, Occ: Real Estate. 7. P. Satyam, S/o. Paramesha, Age 40 years, Occ. Business F!/o.H.No.4_7- 15/35, Raghavendra Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. B. K. Srikanth, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate 9. K. Ramchandar, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate. '10. Smt. Mada Shyamala, S/o. Not known to plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate.

11.Smt. P. Sangeetha W/o. Not known to plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate. 12.Smt. P. Rajeshwari, Wo. Not known to plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate 13. Smt. P. Veena, Wo. S/o. Not known to plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate.

14.8. Ramulu Naik, S/o. Not known to Plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate. 15.B. Laxman Naik, S S/o. Not known to plaintiff, aged Major, Occ: Real Estate. All R/o. C/o. Padmavathi Colo.ny.Welfare Association, Regd. No. l2gl2}1i, Ghantinagar, Uppal Medchal Disirict.)

16.9.. Pratap Naik, S/o Dudya Naik,Age 37 years, R/o. H.NO. 2-153, Uppal Village And Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dis1.

17.Smt.P. Lalitha,, W/o. P. Venkat Reddy, Age 48 years, Occ. Housewife, Fl/o. H. No. 1-7-508/3, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Occ: real estate

18. K. Anil Kumar, S/o. Govardhana Chary, Age 45 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H. No. 1-7-503/1 , Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyd, Occ: real estate

19. P. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Yadaiah, Aged 42 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H.No. 2-2-551113, Shanti Nagar, Hyderabad, Occ: real estate

20. Smt. P.Saraswathi, W/o. P. Bhagavantha Rao, Age 42 years, Occ. Real estate R:/o. Plot No. 301, Pleasant House, Gayatri Nafar, Jeedimetla, Medchal.

21.V. Narsaiah, S/o. Late Shankaraiah, Aged 74 years;. Occ. Real estate, Rl/o. H.No. 12-13-34, G.F. St. No.5, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.

22.N. Prasad, S/o. Kishan Rao, Age 48 years, Occ. Real estate, H. NO. 3-8-12, Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad.

23.K. Govardhan Chary, S/o. Shankariah Chary, age 68 years Occ. Carpenter, Rl/o. H. No. 1-7-50311, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

24.Smt. B. Satya Anasuya, Wo. Raja Ratam, Aged 40 years, Occ. Real estate, Fl/o. H. No. 2-2-215113, Padmavathi Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Uppal, Medchal District.

25. Deekonda Ambadas, Slo. D. Ramulu, Age 50 years, Occ. Real estate, Rl/o. H. No. 2-3-21 5/'18, Padmavathi Colony, Shanthi Nagar, Uppal, lvledchal District. 26. P. Giridhar Rao,, S/o. Laxman Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ. Pvt. Job, Fl/o. Plot No. 10'l , Sri Sai Apartments, Block-A, V.V. Nagar, St. No. B, Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

27.Tri Colours Group., a regd partnership Firm, AAB Complex,2nd Floor, Pillar No. '171 , Besides Akshara School, Attapur Ring Road, Upperpally, Hvderabad' rep bv it's Manasing 'i1R::0"?i"r,5,3.%"r,".:':fli Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to vacate the stay order granted in lA.No. 1 of 2019 in Crl.P.No. 1648 of 2019 vide orders dated 0410412019. l.A. NO: 3 OF 2019 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the withdraw the Crl.P.No. 1648 of 2019 in so far as the first petitioner/A5 alone is concerned. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and of Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2, 3&4. The Court made the following: ORDER THE }TON'BLE SRI JUSTICE X.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.26O1 and 1648 0F 2019 COMMON ORDER: Criminal Petition 26Ol of 2019 is filed by A1 to A4, and criminal Petition 1648 of 2019 is filed by A5 to'A30. Both petitions are flled seeking to quash the crime No.6g5 of 2018 of uppal police Station, R.R.District, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 442, 469, 4ZI, and. 120_8 of the Irtdian Penal Code.

2. Briefly, the case of the petitioners is that the respondents 2 to 4 have filed a private compraint under section 2oo of cr.p.c before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District on 06.o4.2017. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to Police Station, Uppal, under Section 156(3) of Cr.p.C. for investigation and report. Basing on the same, the above crime was registered vide FIR No. 6gs/2olg against the petitioners in both cases, who are A1 to A3O.

3. The allegations made in the complaint are that the father- in-law of the respondent No.4-Thokata Narsimha was the Inamdar and peaceful possessor of the agricultural land in Sy.No.94 to an extent of Ac.0.l6 guntas and in Sy.No. 124 to an extent of Ac.O.O2 guntas, totaling to an extent of Ac.0.1g guntas, situated at Uppal 2 Bagayath Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' After the death of Narsimha, the respondent no' 4's husband, namely Tokata Sandiah, has acquired the same from his father and the name of her husband Thokata Sand.iah, was entered into the revenue records as the owner and possessor of the said propert5r' After Sandiah's death, the respondent No'4 is enjoying the peaceful physical possession of the said property'

4. Further, when A1 along with others tried to interfere and dispossess her possession over the property on 30'07'2015' the respondent No.4 irled a suit vide OS'No'473 of 2015 for perpetual injunction on the frle of I Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District' In the said suit, a written statement was fi1ed, stating that, originally, the land admeasuring Ac'3'06 guntas in Survey No'94 and, 124 of Uppal Bhagayath village was classified as Mafi Inam' Land and Gunde Yadaiah, Gunde Krishna and Panga Yadi Reddy and nine others were in occupation of the same' In view of abolition of Inams and since the said persons were in occupation of the said lands as on the date of vesting, i'e',2O'O7'1955 an{ 01'11'1973' they approached the Inams Tribunal, RDO, for re-gtant of ORC' After due enquiry, the ORC was granted on LO'06'1992' likewise' the Accused No. 1, after the death of her husband, namely Ram Reddy, being in possession of the Inam land as on the date of I I I vesting, approached RDO for re-grant and after conducting enquiry, RDO found that she was in possession of land admeasuring Ac. 1.17 guntas. After collecting premium, RDO has granted ORC No.J/4O8O/1996, Dt.06.09.199T and, tater the MRO, Uppal implemented the same. It is also alleged that the said Gunde Yadaiah, Gunde Krishna and Accused No. 1_pogu.la Sujatha, claiming ownership of the land admeasuring Ac.2.O1 guntas, obtained a layout from the then Gram panchayat and sold plots to vatious persons under registered sale deeds, including the petitioners in Crl.P.No. t648l2Ot9 (i.e., A5 to A3O).

5. Against the grant of the oRC by the RDo, R.R.East Division in file No.J/408O/1996, dt.06.09.1997, in favour of Accused No. 1, the 4*'respondent herein has fired an appeal before the Joint corlector, Malkajgiri-Medchal District in case No.Fl/1828/2016, and the learned Joint collector after detailed enquiry has dismissed the appeal by order dated 24.O2.2OIS. 6' Further, in the suit vide os.No.4z3/2o7s frled by respondents 2 to 4, an interim relief of temporary injunction was sought by respondents 2 to 4 vtde IA.No.653/2015, and after due enquiry, the Honourable Court was pleased to dismiss the temporary injunction petition with an observation that 'the property is agricurtural land and converted into non-agricultural purpose,. It was also observed 4 that the respondents 2 to 4 herein have failed to establish a prima facie case and possession over the suit properry and no documents were filed to show that they are in lawful possession.

7. The respondents 2 to 4 herein have also filed another suit vide OS.No.693/2017 before the II Additional District Judge, R.R.District, for declaration of title and consequential relief of recovery of possession of the subject land, and the same is pending adjudication.

8. The 4*' respondent has filed an application before the Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Oflicer, Malkajgiri Division on 24.O7.2015, to grant Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of survey Nos.94/A (Ac.O.l6 guntas) and 124 (Ac'O'O2 guntas), total extent of Ac.O. 18 guntas. The Special Grade Deputy Collector vide his endorsement No.J/H2+/2015, dated 29.07'2015 has informed her that the said land is not being used for agricultural purpose and the land is converted into non-agricultural use covered by houses, plots, commercial establishments and roads, and the land was already sold to third parties by virtue of registered sale deeds and he is not competent to grant Occupalcy Rights Certificate for non-agricultural lands. I l I I 5

9. The petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3 in Crl.P.26O1 12019, are the daughters of A1. The petitioners 1 to 261A5 to A30 in Crl.P.No. 1648 of 2019, are purchasers of plots since the year 1997. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the plots have been regularized under LRS. Further, having obtained permissions from the GHMC, purchasers constructed houses and are resicling therein.

10. karned Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions submit that the present complaint was filed nearly three years after the institution of the suit, to pressurize the petitioners and gain unlawfully. The disputes are purely civil in nature and when the Civil Court is seized of the matters, the Police cannot investigate regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the documents that were filed in the Court. It is for the Civil Court to decide the rights of the parties in the civil suits that are pending adjudication. 1 1. The respondents, on the other hand, submit that only after filing OS.No.473/2015, they carne to know that the l"t petitioner/Al-Pogula Sujatha, in collusion with Gunde Yadaiah, Gunde Krishna, and Panga Yadi Reddy, fraudulently created a fake layout incorporating the land of the respondents. The land was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use, as such, the question of obtaining ORC in the year 1996 does not arise. Accused No. l-P.Sujatha, fabricated the layout without any resolution from 6 the Gram Panchayat or any other Governmental authorities and later executed several sale deeds creating rights in favour of third parties. In fact, Thokata Narasimha (father-inJaw of the respondent no. 4) was in actual physical possession and enjo5rment of the land making him eligible for the issuance of ORC' After Narasimha's death, Thokata Sandiah (husband of the respondent no.4) inherited the said property and his name was duly recorded in the revemre recordsaSownerandpossessorofthesaidproperty.'Afterthe d.eath of Thokata Sandiah, his wife Thokata Neelama (respondent No.4) is enjoying the peaceful possession of the said property' Respondents 2 and,3 are the sons of Thokata Sandiah and Thokata Neelama(respondentNo.4herein).Therespondentsalsoobtained information under the RTI act on 28'lO'2O15, regarding the conversion of land.s into house plots. It was informed that no proposal for conversion of land was sent by Tahsildar Office, as such, the conversion of land as claimed by A1 is incorrect, and the documents are fabricated. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v' Ramesh Gandhil wherein it was held as follows: "21. Coming to the judgment under appeal, os it is alreadg noticed that the Hlgh Court quashed the FIR onlg on the ground that the supptg of ial lmd beZn obtained- in term-s of a d-ecision giuen bg the, cifitti aUn Court and approued ba thi.s court and for the said '2otz cnt.L..t.3soo :j i I 7 reason no magistrate can, tllerefore, decide uhether ang unjust peanniary adt antage was made auailable to the priuate companA. For coming to such a conclusion, the learned Judge made an 'elaborate examinotion' of tle Indian legal system- But, in our opinion, the entire enEiry proceeded on a u)rong premise that no examination, a.s to Laul a judgment of a supeior Court came into existence, is permissible in the sgstem of lau ulhich ute follotu.

22. This Couft on more tLan one occasion held thnt fraud uitiates euerything including judicial acts. In S.P. Chengal Varagct Naidu (Dead) Bg.Lr-s. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) Bg Lrs. & Ors., (19941 1 SCC 1, this Court obserued as follouls in para 1:- 1 . "Fraud-auoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" obserued Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuies ago. It is the settled proposition of lau that a judgment or decree obtaircd by plaging fraud on th.e court is a nullity and honest in tlle eAes of laut. Such a judgment/ decree - bA the fi.rst court or by the highest court - Las to be treated. as a nullity bg euery court, uthetlrcr supeior or infeior. It can be, cLwllenged in ang court euen in collateral proceedings." L2. As seen from the facts of the case, the disputes are subject matters of civil suits filed, as narrated above. The main allegation is that the ORC was fabricated in the name of Accused No.1, who is 1"t petitioner in Crl.P.No.26O1 of 2019. Accused No. 3 executed sale deeds on the basis of the fabricated ORC.

13. Insofar as Accused Nos. 2 and 4/A2 and A4 in Crl.P.No.26Oll2019 and petitioners 1to 26lAS to A3O in Crl.P.No. 1648 of 2019, are concerned, no specif,lc allegations are leveled against them, in the complaint.

14. Initially, the ORC was in the name of pogula Rami Reddy, husband of Accused No. 1 and two others. After the death of pogula I i i I l Rami reddy, the ORC was given in favour of Accused No.l-Pogula Sujatha. A2 arrd A3 are the daughters of A1. Accused no. 3 has executed sale deeds on the basis of the ORC-

15. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 42O, 447, 468,471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

16. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Prof.R-K-Viiagasarathg and Another a. Sudhd Seetharam qnd Another2, has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 of Indian Penal Code as under: u75. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: "475. Cheating.-Whoeuer, by deceiuing anA person' fraudulentlg or dishonestlg induces the person so deceiued to deliuer anA propertA to anA person, or to consent that any person shall retain onA propertA, or intentionallg induces the person so deceiued" to do or omit to do angthing tuhich he uould not do or omit if he utere not so deceiued, and ulhich act or omission causes or is liketg to cause damage or harm to that person in bodg, mind, reputation or propertA, is said to "cheat" '" 76- The ingredients to con'stitute on offence of cleating are as follouts: 76.7. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person bg deceiuing him: 76. 1.1. The person so induced slwuld be intenhonally induced to deliuer ang propertA to ang person or to consent that ang person shall retain anA propertA, or '(zotg) ro scc z:g I 9

76.7.2. The person so induced should be intentionallg induced to do or to omit to do angthing which he uould not do or omit if te uere not so deceiued; and 76.2. In cases couered bg 16.1.2. aboue, the act or omission shauld be one tuhich caused or is likelg to cause damage or harm to the person induced in bodg, mind, reputation or properlA. 77. A fraudulent or dbhonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person wta dislanestlg induces artother person to deliuer any property is liable for the offence of cheating."

17. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Mariatn Fasihuddin and Another u. State bg Adugodi Police Station and d-nothers, held that: uThe offence oJ forgery und.er Sections 468 and.427 IpC: 33. The offence of forgery' under Section 468 IpC postulates that u.thoeuer commits forgery, intending tLwt the d.ocument or electronic document forged, shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either desciptiort for a term which may extend to seuen gears, and- shall also be liable to fine. Whereo-s Section 471 IpC states that uhoeuer fraudulentlg or di.sLnnestlg uses as genuine ang documents tuhich he knotas or has reason to belieue it to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same monner as if le tLad forged such doanment. 34. Tlrcre ore two pimary components that need. to be fulfitted. in order to establish the offence of forgery', namelg : (i) that 2024 SCC OnLine SC 58 10 the accused has fabicated an instrument; and (ii) it utas done with the intention that the forged document tuould be used for the purpose of cheating. Simplg put, the offence of forgery reEtires the preparation of a false document ulith the dishonest intention of causing damage or injury. 35. The offences of forgery' and 'cheating' intersect and conuerge, as the act of forgery is committed uith the intent to deceiue or cheat an indiuidual."

18. In Sushi! Suri u. Central Bureau of Inaestigdtion and Anothett, the Honourable Supreme Court held that: *26. Simitarlg, the definition of "forgery" in Section 463 IPC is uery wide. The basic elements of forgery are: (i) the making of a false document or part of it, and (ii) such making should be uith such intention as is specified in the section uiz. (a) to cause damage or injury to (i) the public, or (ii) ang person; or (b) to support ang claim or title; or I (c) to cause anA person to port with propertA; or (d) to cause anA person to enter into an express or implied contract; or (e) to commit fraud or that fraud may be ammitted.

27. As stoted aboue, in the instant case more tlmn sufficient circumstances exist suggesttng the hatching of ciminal conspiracg and forgery of seueral doanments leading to commission of the aforemeltioned sections (sic offences). We o (zort) s scc zog 11 refrain from saying more on the subject at this juncture, lest it may cause prejudice to the appellant or the prosecution.,,

19. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: an agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause to be done, either an illegal act or an act which is not illegar in itserf by illegar means.

20. The condition precedent for arriving at a conclusion of criminal conspiracy is that there shall a meeting of minds of two or more persons. Though, there cannot be any direct evidence regarding the criminal conspiracy, however, the circumstances in a given case can be looked into for the purpose of inferring criminal conspiracy amongst the accused persons.

21. A reading of the complaint makes out specific ;rllegations of forgery against A1 and A3 only. Nothing specihc is alleged against any of the other petitioners. The transactions in the case are over a period of time since 1996 and the private compraint was fired in the year 2078' The claims of both the parties are the subject matter of civil suit.

22. The Honourable Supreme Court, in Sftiu prasad Semulal a. Stte of Uttarq.khand q.nd. otherss, held that: t 12024; 7 Supreme Court Cases 555 I n 33. In the case of Stote of llaryana and ors. V. Bhaian Lal and Ors. 7992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court examined the pinciples goueming the scope of exercise of pouers bg the High Court in a petition under Arhcle 226 of the Constitution of India and und.er Section 482 of Code of Ciminal Procedure seeking quashing of ciminal proceedings and held as follows: 7O2. In the bockdrop of the interpretatiln of the uaious releuant prouisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the pinciples of tatu enunciated bg this Court in a seies of d.ecisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary pouter under Article 226 or the inLerent powers under Section 482 of the Code which ttte haue extracted and reproduced aboue, we giue the follotuing categoies of cases by way of illustration utherein such pou.rcr could. be exercked either to preuent abuse of the process of ang aurt or otheruise to secure the ends of justice, tLaugh it maA not be possible to lay doun ong precise' clearty d.efined and sufficientty channelised and infleible guidetines or rigid formulae and to giue an exhaustiue list of mgriad. kind.s of cases uherein such pouer sLtould be exercised' (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, euen if they are taken at their face ualue and accepted in their enhretg do not pima facie constihtte any offence or moke out a case against the acansed' (2) Where the allegations in the first infonnation report and other matenals, if any, accompanging the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifuing an inuestigation bg police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate utithin the puruiett of Section 155(2) of the Code' (3) Wltere the uncontrouerted allegations made in the FIR or comploint and. the euiderrce collected in suppori of the some do not disclose the commission of ang offence and make out a case against the accatsed. T 13 (4) Wlrcre, the allegattons in the FIR do not constitrtte a cognizable offence but constitute only a non_cognizable offence, no inuestigation is pennitted_ by a police officer uithout an ord.er of a Magistrate as contemplated und-er Section 1SS(2) of th.e Code. (5) Where the allegations mad.e in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherentlg improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can euer reach a just concrision that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused_. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted. in ang of the proui.sions of the Code or th_e concerrted. Act (und"er which a ciminal proceeding i.s ir*tituted_) to the institution and. continuance of the proceedings and/ or ruhere there is a specific prouision in the Code or the concerrted_ Act, prouiding efficacious redress for the gieuance of the aggieued party. (7) Where a ciminal proceeding is manifestlg attend.ed u,tith mala fide and/ or where the proceed.ing is maliciouslg instjtuted. with an ulteior motiue for wreaking uengeance on the acansed. and. with a uieut to spite him due to priuate and. personal grud.ge. 34. Testecl on the touchstone of the aboue principles, we are of the firm uiew that allowing continuance of the proceed.ings pursuant to the impugned FIR bearing No. 31 of 2O2O registered. at PS Munr Ki Reti, Di"strict Tehri Garhutal against the appeltant is nothing but gross abuse of process of lotu because the allegations as set out in the FIR d.o not disclose necessary ingredients of ang cognizable offence. Hence, the impugned. FIR and all proceedings sougLtt to be taken against tLrc appellant are herebg quashed and set aside." I I I ) , I

23. In the facts of the present case, it appears that the complaint has been made to force the accused into settling the cir"il disputes. A reading of the complaint clearly reflects that the claim and the I I t4 counter claims made in the civil suits are mentioned in the complaint. The issues that have to be decided by the civil Court, cannot be a subject matter of investigation and the Investigating Officer is not competent to decide regarding the rights or otherwise of the parties. As already discussed, nothing specific is alleged against A2 arrdA4 to A30. The present complaint was filed after the respondent/ complainant failed to get any favourable orders in the Civil Court. Criminal forum cannot be used to force a setflement in civil cases. None of the ingredients of either cheating or fabrication of record is made out against A2 and A4 to A3O.

24. Accordingiy, Cr1.P.No.2601 of 2Oi9 is partly allowed and Crl.P.No. 1648 of 2O19 is allowed. The proceedings against A.2 and A4 to A3O are quashed. Insofar as Al and A3 are concerned, the investigation may go on, however, the Police shall not take any coercive steps against A1 and A,3, pending investigation. //TRUE COPY/i SD/- T JAYASREE SS STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The lll Metropolitan lvlagistrate Cyberabad at L.B. The Station House Offlcer,, Uppal Police Station, Rachakonda District. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, State of Telangana, High Court Buildings, at Hyderabad (OUT) One CC to Sri. K Venumadhav, Advocate [OPUC] one CC to Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies +y I To, 1 2 3 4 5 6 LD =- HIGH COURT DAfED:121031202s COMMON ORDER CRLP.NoS: 2601 arrd 1648 OF 2019 tiE S.I,1 o^ ( ? 5 APn 2025 ( J or, lr o F5 llrj: (:,t PARTLY ALLOWING THE Crl.P. No. 2601 of 2019 And ALLOWING THE Crl.P. No. 1648 of 2019. c e 4l?(