BALUGURI I VENKATESHWARLU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Accused 1 to 4, by names Baluguri Venkateshwarlu, K.Bagirath, Baluguri Pavan S/o.Baluguri Venkateshwarlu & K.Satish, in Crime No.368 of 2018 of Khammam Rural Police Station, which is outcome of the private complaint of the second respondent - de facto complainant, by name Tatikonda Satyanandam, dated 08.10.2018, that was referred to Police for investigation by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, in registration of Crime supra, dated 14.10.2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 506, 294-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, (for short, 'IPC') and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') and the present quash petition is filed in seeking to quash the same.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and notice sent to the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant even acknowledged and served, he failed to attend and taken as heard and heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted progress of investigation, the Part-I Case Dairy and perused the material on record.

(3.) The sum and substance of the acquisition in the private complaint in registration of the crime is that A-1 is the nephew of complainant, to say elder sister's son, and A-3 is son of A-1 and A-2 is plaintiff in O.S.No.869 of 2018, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, where, in the plaint, it is alleged that the plaintiff lent to the defendant, complainant herein, under pronote, dated 17.01.2016, attested by A-4 and scribed by A-3, son of A-1, by alleging said pronote is a forged and fabricated one and the background alleged is that during 2013, complainant, in need of money, taken from A-1, in three occasions, Rs.1,50,000/-, i.e., Rs.50,000/- in 2013, by giving blank signed pronote and said Rs.50,000/- mentioned on the top of the pronote and also obtained three more promissory notes by A-1 with Rs.50,000/- without dates that was duly signed by the complainant, however, blank and contents unfilled and not attested and except the amount Rs.50,000/- with figures on the top of the notes and signature of complainant, remaining contents of the pronotes are blank and the rate of interest fixed was 24% per annum and A-1 started demanding since 2014 to repay said amount with interest @ 48%, double the agreed rate, and as complainant refused to pay at such high rate, there was Panchayat held in the presence of L.Ws.1 to 3 of the private complaint, Kanakapudi Yesu, Thotapalli Venkatarathnam & Peddapaka Ramesh, besides T.Suresh, whose whereabouts not known, and the issue was settled for Rs.3,00,000/- in lump-sum payable to A-1 by the complainant for full satisfaction and complainant agreed and the settlement was reduced to writing, scribed by Peddapaka Ramesh - L.W.3 and attested by Kanakapudi Yesu & Thotapalli Venkatarathnam - L.Ws.1 & 2 on 14.11.2014 and at that time, A-1 informed the elders and the complainant of one of the three pronotes was misplaced and promised to hand over and he would trace out and give and out of good faith and from the relationship to A-1 with complainant as nephew and uncle. The complainant believed his version hoping he would not misuse and would return as and when traced of believing not available and misplaced and the statement of A-1 about misplacement was also mentioned in the mutual agreement supra. Later, difference arose between the two families of A-1 and complainant and in December, 2015, A-1 went back from his mutual agreement, dated 14.11.2014, and started harassing complainant to pay another Rs.3,00,000/- and as if interest rate @ 48% and started threatening to make use of the pronote by filling contents to lay false claim unless and until he would pay another Rs.4,00,000/-, for which complainant refused and nearly two years later, complainant received reply notice, dated 07.10.2017, said to have been issued under instructions of A-2, as if A-2 lent Rs.7,50,000/- to complainant and complainant sent reply denying the same on 24.10.2017 and surprisingly complainant received summons as defendant in O.S.No.869 of 2018 supra and having gone through the plaint copy and xerox copy of the filled pronote, noticed the fabrication and it discloses A-1 intentionally retained one blank pronote mentioned above and misused the same and cause filing the suit supra by insertion of figure "7" fixing the amount Rs.7,50,000/- on the top of pronote, to say by fabrication and the difference in handwriting of "7" and "Rs.50,000/-" respectively as subsequent insertion to claim as if Rs.7,50,000/- lent is clear and the complainant never saw the face of A-2 and A-4, except knowing A-1 and A-3 and it is a fabrication and misuse of the pronote available with A-1 by A-2 and complainant when questioned A-1 as to why he cause filed the false case through A-2, A-1 along with A2 to A-4 abused in filthy language and threatened him and they are thereby liable for the offences of forgery for the purpose of cheating by make use of forged document.