ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners-A3 to A6 under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.242 of 2017 on the file of Saifabad Police Station registered against them for the offences under Ss. 406, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC.

(2.) The case of the petitioners in brief was that the 2nd respondent lodged a private complaint before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad submitting that she was the lawful owner of the property bearing Municipal No.6/1/1060 and 6/1/1060 D, Ground floor admeasuring 700 Sq.feet (Shop No.5 and 6) situated at Hafeez Complex, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad having acquired the same by way of registered settlement deed bearing document No.763/2015 dtd. 19/2/2015 executed by her father Mohd. Ashraf S/o.Late Mohd. Zakeriya. She submitted that the said property was given on long lease by her grandfather Late Mohd. Zakeriya for a period of 9 years in 2003 to Ashok Kumar (petitioner No. 1), who sub-let the said property to Kaleshwari Travels, against the terms of lease, wherein they were carrying on the business of travel agency and allied services. The said lease expired in 2012. After the death of her grandfather Mohd. Zakeriya, the entire property was devolved upon her father (A1) and his brother (A2) and their sister Akhter Jahan, who was residing in USA. The property was not put to partition. Both A1 and A2 created charges upon the property. A1 offered Shop No.5 and 6, admeasuring each 350 Sq.feet at ground floor and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.20.00 lakhs towards sale price for the said shops. The complainant with great difficulty arranged the said amount and paid to A1 under a receipt drafted on Rs.100.00 non-Judicial Stamp paper on 22/10/2014. A2 and her husband stood as witnesses. A1 promised to execute a conveyance deed but postponed and after a lot of persuasion executed a settlement deed on 19/2/2015 in favour of the complainant on her assurance to pay a further sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs to A3 to get him vacated. A1 and A2 assured that they negotiated the terms and conditions with A3 and that A3 was willing to vacate the same if he was paid Rs.10.00 lakhs. Accordingly the complainant obtained a demand draft for Rs.10.00 lakhs on 11/2/2016 and handed over the same to A1. After a couple of months, A1 returned the demand draft of Rs.10.00 lakhs asking her to approach the court to evict the tenants as A3 turned away from his promise of vacating the shops. Having no other option, the complainant got issued a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 25/4/2016 to A3 to quit and handover the shops. A3 got issued a reply notice stating that he entered into an agreement to purchase the shops from A1, A2 and Akhter Jahan, but the column of signature of Akhter Jahan was left blank. The complainant submitted that she initiated proceedings against A3 by filing OS No.1234 of 2016 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. While filing written statement, A3 disclosed that A1 and A2 executed a registered sale deed bearing Document No.5393 and 5394 of 2016 dtd. 19/10/2016 in his favour. The complainant was put in total darkness about the transaction. The receipt submitted by A3 would show that she also received the sale proceeds. The signature found upon the indenture (receipt) dtd. 31/5/2016 did not belong to the complainant. A3 forged the signature in collusion with A1 and A2 to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. A1 and A2, being the father and paternal uncle, who ought to have protected her interest involved themselves in cheating, forgery. The purchasers submitted those documents in the court together with the alleged receipt as genuine, to usurp her own property. The said complaint was referred to the Police Saifabad and it was registered as Crime No.242 of 2017 under Sec. 406, 420, 506 read with 34 IPC.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - complainant.