VEDULA YAGNESWARA CHAINULU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C') to petitioner/A.2 in Crime No.320 of Pendurthy Rural police station, Visakhapatnam District, registered for the offence under Ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

(2.) In summary, the Prosecution alleges that Accused No.1 approached the de facto complainant, claiming that Accused No.3 possessed power of attorney from Accused No.2 for a parcel of land measuring 7.744 square yards in Sy.No.7-4A3C of Narava Village, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, using falsified documents. Acting as a mediator, A.1 facilitated an agreement to sell the land at Rs.1,50,00,000.00 per acre to the de facto complainant and their associate, Kalvakota Sarath kumar. On 22/1/2020, a cheque of Rs.25,00,000.00 was provided as advance payment to A.1. Subsequently, Kalvakota Sarath kumar transferred Rs.1,15,00,000.00 in separate installments to A.1's account. Additionally, the de facto complainant transferred Rs.43,50,000.00 and paid Rs.11,50,000.00 in cash to A.1, totalling Rs.1,70,00,000.00 in payments. However, it later emerged that the land in question belonged to APIIC, and the accused fabricated documents to falsely depict the land in Sy.No.7-4A3D of APIIC as the land in Sy.No.7-4A3C. Consequently, they deceived the de facto complainant and his associate by presenting fake documents. Based on the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, the current case has been registered. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner is a lawabiding citizen who has not engaged in any criminal activity; the Complainant failed to specify any particular offence or wrongdoing committed by the Petitioner in the complaint; the initiation of legal proceedings against the Petitioner is to be an abuse of the legal process, undertaken solely to harass and defame him; the complaint was filed with malicious and unlawful intentions, aiming to unlawfully acquire property that does not rightfully belong to the Defacto Complainant; the Petitioner owns landed property and has no intention of evading the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court and moreover, the Petitioner expresses readiness to fully cooperate with the investigation; consequently, the Petitioner prays to grant bail. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the Petitioner on the ground that the investigation is not completed. 5. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their contentions on par with the submissions presented in the Petition as well as in the report. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that except for the offence under Sec. 467 of I.P.C., all the offences are punishable with imprisonment for seven years or less than seven years and Sec. 467 of I.P.C. is added apart from other Sec. , where punishment provided is less than seven years and the investigation officer is required to summon the accused for investigation. Sec. 467 of the I.P.C. provides for a sentence of imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also fine; Sec. 41A of the Cr.P.C. puts certain restrictions upon the police to arrest an accused where the offence complained of attracts punishment for less than seven years. This Court finds substantial force in the submission of the Petitioner's counsel that merely mentioning a penal Sec. in the complaint to register the F.I.R. under Sec. 467 IPC is insufficient to preclude the scope of Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. 7. Considering the submissions made, now this Court is inclined to consider whether Sec. 467 of I.P.C. has been added merely to make out a case against the Accused. 8. According to the grounds stated in the Petitioner's bail application, it is asserted that the Petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favour of the De facto Complainant on 2/11/2020. Subsequently, the De facto Complainant registered a development agreement, along with an irrevocable General Power of Attorney No.524/2021, about the same subject property on a later date, 22/1/2021. Furthermore, the Petitioner has provided a copy of the General Power of Attorney document, dtd. 21/11/2020, executed in favour of Malla Sreenivasa Naidu, wherein the Petitioner is identified as the son of late Suryanarayana Murthy, also known as late Narasimha Murthy. It is asserted that the Petitioner's father acquired the said properties through inheritance, with his name duly recorded in the revenue records. However, the Petitioner has submitted a copy of his father's death certificate, indicating that Vedula Suryanarayana Murthy passed away on 2/11/2023. This prima facie discrepancy suggests an erroneous reference in the Power of Attorney document regarding the death of the Petitioner's father. The Development agreement coupled with irrevocable General Power of Attorney dtd. 23/1/2021 executed between Kalavakota Rajeswara Rao and Malla Sreenivasula Naidu by Vedula Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy S/o Govinda Sharma and Vedula Suryanarayana Sharma, S/o Govinda Sharma, is also placed. 9. The Victim/Defacto Complainant asserts that Malla Sreenivasula Naidu, relying on the Power of Attorney executed by the Petitioner herein, agreed to sell the property at a rate of Rs.1,50,00,000.00 per acre. He received an advance payment of Rs.25,00,000.00 by cheque on 22/1/2020 and, in total, received Rs.1,70,00,000.00. Furthermore, the De facto Complainant alleges that under pressure, Adari Srinivasa Rao, who initially held the Power of Attorney, cancelled the document in his name. Later that same day, he arranged for Vedula Yagveswara Chainulu to execute a new Power of Attorney in favour of the De facto Complainant. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed a copy of the R.O.R., I.B. report, which indicates Pattadar's name is shown as Vedula Narasimha Murthy, Katha number is shown as 10005 and survey number/sub-division number is shown as 7-4A3C, 7-5 and the extent is shown as 3 and 0.31. Pattadar is shown to have got right by inheritance. It is printed from the Mee Bhoomi website on 20/3/2024 at 05.16 PM. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that prima facie, the revenue record indicates the Petitioner's family's right to the schedule property. Even according to the Petitioner's case, he executed a General Power of Attorney on 2/11/2020, and the Petitioner has also placed a copy of the General Power of Attorney document dtd. 21/11/2020 executed in favour of Malla Sreenivasa Naidu. The execution of the said document by the Petitioner is not disputed by the Petitioner by Malla Sreenivasa Naidu or the Defacto Complainant. 11. Reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of Bihar,(2009) 8 SCC 547. wherein, it has been stated as under :