M. KHALILULLAH Vs. AMBULA LALITHAMBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/de facto complainant seeking to quash the order, dated 25.04.2017, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1278 of 2017 in C.C.No.130 of 2014 on the file of the XXIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally at Miyapur, wherein and whereunder an application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., to issue summons to one M.Venkat Ram, was dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in issue, are as under: Respondents 1 and 2/accused were charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 470, 471 and 204 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The averments in the charge sheet disclose that the petitioner/de facto complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of Sy.No.18 of Babbuguda along with brothers viz., Athaullah, Saifullah and sisters namely Rafia Begum, Karima Begum and Vasima Begum and the same is evident from all the revenue records right from the year 1965. Plot Nos. 196, 197, 202 and 203 admeasuring 853.54 square yards are comprised in the said survey number which they kept for construction of their own houses. The said Sy.No.18 along with other survey numbers of Babbuguda were attracted by the Urban Land Ceiling Act as such they could not alienate the said land to anybody and it is not taken as a surplus land till date. The respondents/A-1 and A-2 in collusion with the attesting witnesses created a forged document by forging his signature as if he has sold the said plots to A-1 being a GPA holder of his brothers and sisters on 15.07.1980. A-1, being the mother of A2, created a registered sale deed in favour of A-2 vide document No.2859/1996 dated 26.06.1996, in which it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner/de facto complainant sold the property to A-1 and in the said sale deed, it is also stated that 40 years old building is in existence and built up area is 200 square feet, which would clearly falsify the claim of A-1 and A-2. Basing on the said document and by colluding with the Municipal Authorities, they obtained H.No.1-55/1/5. A-2 also created false and forged document in respect of other plots on the name of Seelam Ayodhya Ramaiah. GPA holder of Ayodhya Ramaiah and the interested persons filed O.S.Nos. 297, 298 and 299 of 1997 before the Addition Junior Civil Judge, West and South and on contest the same are proved to be false and forged documents. Now, A-2 in collusion with the third party tried to grab the property and wants to raise a multi-storied complex. Then, the petitioner/de facto complainant made a complaint with Police, Sanathnagar and obtained the documents from G.H.M.C. under Right to Information Act and came to know that A-1 and A-2, being the mother and daughter, with the help of attesting witnesses created a registered sale deed secretly in collusion with each other and also the attesting witnesses therein with an intention to grab the said property by forging the signatures of the petitioner/de facto complainant.

(3.) After examination of PWs.1 and 2, the Prosecution filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to issue summon to the said M.Venkatram, stating that he is the crucial witness to the prosecution case and in the private complaint the name of the said person was shown as a witness, but unfortunately, the said witness was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet. A counter came to be filed by respondents/A-1 and A-2 stating that since the investigation was already completed and charges were framed, the present application is not at all maintainable. After considering the entire material available on record, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the de facto complainant filed the present Criminal Petition.