SRI.G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO v. State of Telangana and Anr (SAS Infra Tech)2 & Ors.

SRI.G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

27.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SOMWARPET IN C.C.NO.199/2021 (P.C.R.NO.69/2020) TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420,425,468,471,200,426 OF IPC AND ISSUING THE SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY REGISTERING THE CASE AGAINST HIM AS C.C. IN REGISTER NO.III. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.199/2021 (PCR No.69/2020) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 425, 468, 471, 200 and 426 of IPC, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet, Kodagu. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR

#2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

#3. In support of the petition, accused has contended that based on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant, on reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and after conducting investigation, concerned police have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 425, 468, 471, 200 and 426 IPC. Petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged. He falsely implicated. The concerned police without conducting proper investigation have filed charge sheet. The complaint is not supported by verifying affidavit, nor the remedy under Section 154(2) Cr.PC is exhausted before filing the complaint. Therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. There is also no application of mind by the trial Court before issuing summons. The concerned police have also not made any enquiry about O.S.No.6/2012. There is also Bar under Section 195 Cr.PC - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR to take cognizance. Viewed from any angle, criminal proceedings are not maintainable and hence the petition.

#4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P (Priyanka Srivastava)1.

#5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant submit that accused and father of complainant are siblings being the son of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda. He was owning landed properties in Madalapur and Kelagale Villages, Hassan District. He also owned landed properties in Niluvagila village, Kodlipet Hobli of Somwarpet, Kodagu District. During 2008, properties belonging to Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda Sy.No.271/16/P2 measuring 17 cents out of 2 acres was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Hemavathi reservoir project. He filed LAC. No.7/2016 for enhancement 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR of the compensation. Partition is not effected in the family. Complainant and his brothers have filed O.S.No.6/2012 for partition. Sy.No.271/16P2 is one of the subject matter of the said suit.

#6. During pendency LAC.No.7/2016 Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda died leaving behind his wife, Thimmamma and four sons, Krishna Gowda, Mohan Gowda, Yogesha, Keshavamurthy and two daughter Savithri and Jayamma. However, accused filed LR application falsely claiming that he and his mother Thimmamma are the only legal heirs. Accused has also fabricated and forged document in support of the application. Therefore, complainant has filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. It was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police filed charge sheet against the accused. There is prima facie material to proceed against him and pray to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR

#7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in M/s SAS Infra Tech Private Ltd Vs State of Telangana and Anr (SAS Infra Tech)2

#8. Heard arguments and perused the record.

#9. The relationship between complainant and accused is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the property in question belongs to the grandfather of complainant and a suit in O.S.No.6/2012 is filed for partition and it is pending. It is also an admitted fact that LAC.No.7/2016 was filed by the grandfather of complainant for enhancement of the compensation and during its pendency he died. It is also an admitted fact that accused filed application to bring the legal representatives of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda. In application, he has shown himself and his mother as the only legal heirs of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda. 2 Crl.A.No.2574/2024 [SLP(Crl)No.2123/2024 dt:14.05.2024] - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR Despite the complainant and other legal representatives are there, he has made the said application based on false information furnished to the revenue authorities for getting the geological tree certified.

#10. In the light of these facts, the complainant choose to file private complaint. After it was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the concerned police after conducting detailed investigation have filed charge sheet. It is true that the complaint is not supported by affidavit as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava referred to supra. At the outset it is relevant to note that the said directions were given to safeguard the interest of innocent persons who are being prosecuted without there being any substance in the accusation and to prevent unscrupulous, complainant utilizing the said facility to arm twist the accused persons and to agree for their illegal demands. In the event, the concerned police files 'B' report or the Court - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR coming to the conclusion that the prosecution of accused is illegal, it may hold complainant responsible for the allegations made. However, when once charge sheet is filed, it goes without saying that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused and it was not a ploy to force the accused person to agree for the terms of the complainant.

#11. In Crl.A.No.2574/2024, in the matter of SAS Infra Tech, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the observations made in Priyanka Srivastava, requiring filing of affidavit is by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided. In other words on facts and circumstances, the Court may decide that whether the complaint filed is frivolous or in the light of the material, the non-filing of affidavit would not go to the root of the case. Having regard to the fact that charge sheet is filed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the non-filing - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR of supporting affidavit would not go to the root of the case.

#12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for accused that there is prohibition under Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 471 Cr.PC, except by way of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C by the public servant. Section 463 IPC defines the term forgery as "Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery".

#13. Section 471 punishes any person who uses as genuine a forged document or electronic record. When such forged document is used as genuine by producing it before a public servant or Court. It empowers such public servant or the Court as the case may be to file complaint. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR Section 195 Cr.P.C prohibits taking of cognizance for such offence, except by a complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C by the such public servant or the Court as the case maybe. In the present case, Section 471 is one such offence.

#14. However, the question of the Court or the public servant filing complaint alleging forgery or concoction would arise, if the forgery or concoction are subsequent to the production of documents before the said public servant or the Court as the case may be. Therefore, question of the public servant or the Court filing complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not arise. This aspect is clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: (i) Sachidanand Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.(Sachidanand Singh)3 (ii) Surjit Singh & Ors Vs. Balbir Singh (Surjit Singh)4 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 HC-KAR (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41