(Prayer: Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.626/2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandigama in the interest of justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the Petitioner in C.C.No.626/2023 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Nandigama, pending disposal of the above Crl.P. in the interest of Justice.

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim direction passed in lA 01/2023 in CRL.P No. 8570 of 2023, Dt.04-11-2023 by dismissing the petition and pass)

1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘CrPC’) has been filed by the petitioner/ Accused No.1, to quash the proceedings in Calendar Case No.626 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, arising out of a complaint filed by the respondent No.1/complainant under Section 190 (1) (a) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner/Accused No.1 and other accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 193, 199 and 23 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’).

2. Brief facts of the complaint filed by respondent No.1/ complainant, are that, the respondent No.1/complainant is younger brother of 1st accused, and 2nd accused is husband of 1st accused; that the father of respondent No.1/complainant viz., Rama Koteswara Rao had four daughters, and respondent No.1/complainant is the only son to him; that during the life time of father of respondent No.1/ complainant, he acquired an extent of Ac.16.95 cents of agricultural land in Survey No.102 of Keesara village, Kanchikacherla Mandal through Family Settlement Deed vide Document No.3134/1962, dated 16.10.1962; that the father of respondent No.1/complainant died intestate on 22.09.1998, and the respondent No.1/complainant and his mother got absolute rights over the said immovable property; that in the year 2001, the respondent No.1/complainant and his mother applied for Pattadar Passbook for the land which was in the name of deceased father of respondent No.1/complainant and also for the land of Ac.5.32 cents, acquired by respondent No.1/complainant.

                  (b) The Revenue authorities of Kanchikacherla issued notice to the respondent No.1/complainant and to his mother to attend the Kanchikacherla Office with all the legal heirs of the deceased Rama Koteswara Rao, to take their affidavits; that the petitioner/A1 and her younger sisters attended the MRO Office and filed their affidavits that they have no right in their deceased father’s property and requested the MRO to issue Pattadar Passbook in the name of respondent No.1/ complainant and his mother, and accordingly, the MRO of Kanchikacherla issued joint Passbook to them and since then, they have been in exclusive possession of lands covered under the Pattadar Passbook.

                  (c) That on 26.05.2008, the mother of respondent No.1/ complainant executed a Settlement Deed in favour of petitioner/1st accused to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents from her share in the joint property covered under the Pattadar Passbook and the petitioner/1st accused acknowledged the same in the Settlement Deed registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Kanchikacherla. As there is hike in the price of agricultural lands in the year 2008, both the accused, with guilty mind, started attempts to grab the agricultural land covered under the joint passbook; that to protect the land from the clutches of accused, the respondent No.1/complainant filed Original Suit No.172 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandigama and as a counterblast, the petitioner/A1 filed suit for Partition in the year 2009, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, without having locus standi. The accused No.1 filed chief-examination affidavit with all false averments, during cross-examination, 1st accused gave false evidence on oath before the VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada stating that 1st accused does not know about the issuance of passbook in the name of her mother and respondent No.1/ complainant in the year 2001. It was further deposed by 1st accused in her cross-examination that she never consented for issuance of passbook in favour of respondent No.1/complainant and his mother. Accused No.1 also gave false evidence about the Settlement Deed executed by her mother in her favour i.e. Ac.1.00 cents of land through Registered Settlement Deed. Accused No.1 was alleged to have falsely deposed that she did not go to the Sub-Registrar Office and the document shown to her, was not executed in her favour. The accused No.1 also gave false evidence that it is not true to say that she was gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land under the Document No.2434/2008 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kanchikacherla. Accused No.1 filed further chief-affidavit on the file of XVI Additional District Judge, Nandigama, in which, she admitted that the Gift Deed Document No.2434 of 2008 was executed in her favour. From this, it is clear that the petitioner/A1 deposed false evidence in the suit proceedings. Accused Nos.1 and 2 jointly made several attempts to disturb the respondent No.1/ complainant from cultivating the land covered under Pattadar Passbook with the help of their henchmen. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama vide Order dated 10.07.2023 in C.F.No.6752 of 2022, took cognizance of the complaint against the petitioner/A1 and numbered the same as Calendar Case No.626 of 2023, of the offences punishable under Sections 191, 199 and 23 read with 193 of IPC, and dismissed the complaint against accused No.2.

4. At the time of admission of Criminal Petition, this Court vide Order dated 04.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023, granted interim stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/A1 in Calendar Case No.626 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 would contend that the offence under Section 191 of IPC, which defines the act of giving false evidence, is punishable under Section 193 of IPC, therefore, the trial Court ought not to have taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 191 of IPC. Learned counsel would further contend that in view of statutory bar under Section 195 of CrPC, the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 193 and 199 of IPC, and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. According to learned counsel, the contents of the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence under Section 23 and 199 of IPC and under these circumstances, pending further proceedings before the trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of Court.

6. Aggrieved of granting interim stay by this Court, respondent No.1/complainant filed vacate stay petition along with counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner/A1 filed suit for Partition in Original Suit No.46 of 2013 (O.S.No.177 of 2009) on the file of the XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama against respondent No.1/complainant, her mother and other sisters and during trial, the petitioner/A1 categorically deposed that he did not went to Sub-Registrar Office and no Gift/Settlement Deed was executed by her mother in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents, which is against the truth. As the petitioner/A1 intentionally gave false statement before the Court, the respondent No.1/complainant filed the present private complaint and the trial Court rightly taken the cognizance of the case as against the petitioner/A1. Hence, it is prayed to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court and dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/respondent No.2 concurred with the submissions made by respondent No.1/complainant and prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/A1, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State representing respondent No.1. Perused the material available on record.

9. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to give effect to any order under the code or to secure the ends of justice. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases and that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the report. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in State of Haryana v. Ch.Bhajanlal and Ors.( AIR 1992 SC 604.), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

                  “In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

                  (1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

                  (2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code;

                  (3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

                  (4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code;

                  (5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

                  (6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

                  (7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

10. Any statement made under oath that the Court requires or permits and any document that is produced in accordance with its instructions constitute evidence. The term Evidence includes all information and facts that contribute to proving the truth. Further, false evidence is evidence that is not true in nature. Creating evidence out of the blue, showing something that has never happened, or just altering an incident that has really happened amounts to false evidence.

11. The offences that are taken cognizance by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama are Sections 191, 193, 199 and 23 of IPC. Section 191 of IPC defines Giving False Evidence (perjury), holding that anyone legally bound by oath or law to tell the truth, who makes a false statement knowing it to be false (or not believing it to be true), commits this offence. The ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC are whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 199 of IPC penalizes making false statements in a declaration that is legally receivable as evidence. The essential ingredients of Section 191 of IPC are, a false declaration made by a person, such declaration is required by law to be received as evidence by a Court or public servant, and the false statement is material to the declaration's purpose.

12. Section 23 of IPC defines Wrongful Gain and Wrongful Loss, focusing on property acquired or lost via illegal means. The essential ingredients include, gain or loss by unlawful means, property to which the person is not legally entitled (for gain) or is deprived of legally (for loss), and Dishonest intention (mens rea).

13. As per the contents of the complaint, the respondent No.1/ complainant got filed O.S.No.172 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandigama and as per the contents of the complaint, the trial Court was said to have granted Temporary Injunction in favour of respondent No.1/complainant, and as a counterblast to the said suit proceedings, the petitioner/accused No.1 got filed O.S.No.177 of 2009 on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, for Partition, against the defendant Nos.1 to 5, who are none other than her brother, sisters and mother, and also against defendant No.6, who is stranger to their family. Apparently, the said suit was later transferred to the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama and numbered as Original Suit No.46 of 2013. Vide Judgment dated 11.06.2019, the learned XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Nandigama, granted preliminary decree in respect of plaintiff and against the defendants therein.

14. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1/ complainant that in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama, the petitioner/A1 deposed false evidence as P.W1, that she do not know the issuance of Passbook in the name of her mother and respondent No.1/complainant in the year 2001. It is further contended that the petitioner/A1 as P.W1 also gave false evidence during her cross-examination that she never consented for issuance of Passbook in favour of the respondent No.1/ complainant and his mother, and that, the Settlement Deed executed by her mother in her favour i.e. Ac.1.00 cents of land, through Registered Settlement Deed. It is also the contention of learned counsel that the petitioner/A1 further falsely deposed that she did not go to the Sub-Registrar’s Office and she denied the suggestion that she was gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land under the Document No.2434 of 2008 of Sub-Registrar Office, Kanchikacherla, and she also denied the signature of her husband on the document marked as Ex.B.1 in O.S.No.45 of 2013 i.e. Accepting Deed executed between the D1 and D5 therein.

15. This Court perused the entire deposition of P.W1 in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama, which includes chief-examination and cross-examination. In the chief-examination affidavit of petitioner/A1 as P.W1, she stated that after the death of her father, she along with her brother and sisters were in joint possession and enjoyment of subject property and on behalf of them, the respondent No.1/complainant was managing all the joint family properties. Her chief-examination affidavit is further to the effect that the names of petitioner/A1, her brother and others sisters are entered in the revenue records as they are legal heirs of their deceased father. As the respondent No.1/complainant is not showing the accounts properly and utilizing the income derived from the joint family properties for his selfish ends and not giving share to her and also to her other sisters, she questioned the respondent No.1/complainant and as such, she filed O.S.No.46 of 2013 for Partition of joint family properties. She, in her chief-examination affidavit, she had not filed any affidavit before the revenue authorities relinquishing her share over the schedule property. In the cross-examination of P.W1, she deposed that she never consented for issuance of pattas in favour of her brother i.e. respondent No.1/ complainant and her mother and that, she does not know about the consent said to have been given by D2 to D4 therein.

16. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the respondent No.1/complainant filed I.A.No.865 of 2015 in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama under Order XVI Rule 1 to 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 contending that though the petitioner/A1 herein took her share of property under Ex.B3-Registered Settlement Deed dated 26.05.2008, filed the suit for Partition and thereby, prayed the Court to issue summons to the Sub-Registrar, Land Assurances, Stamps and Registrations, Kanchikacherla directing him to produce the Thumb Impression Register for the year 2008 containing the signatures pertaining to the Settlement Deed, dated 2434 of 2008 of Kanchikacherla Sub-Registrar Office, dated 26.05.2008. The petitioner/A1 herein in the said interlocutory application contended that there is no recital in Ex.B3-Registered Settlement Deed, dated 26.05.2008 that the property under the said document was given to petitioner/A1 herein as her share and that, the recitals was to the effect that the deed was executed out of love and affection only, but not towards her share of the property. The learned Trial Judge in its Order dated 16.09.2015 dismissed the aforesaid application on the ground that when the mother of petitioner/A1 herein, who is the executant of Ex.B.3-Registered Settlement Deed, dated 26.05.2008 came forward and deposed that she executed the said document, there is no need to summon the thumb impression register and summoning the Sub-Registrar as a witness to given evidence.

17. Aggrieved of the said Order, dated 16.09.2015, the respondent No.1/complainant herein preferred Civil Revision Petition No.4918 of 2015 before this Court. This Court, vide Order dated 03.08.2016 at paragraph No.2 observed as under:

                  “However, once such is the case of the stand of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to either come back and depose in the further examination or file affidavit but for she denied in the cross-examination of her about the execution of the gift deed, there is no need that could arise to summon the Sub-Registrar to produce the original record to prove the signature and thumb impression of the mother in proof of execution… Here, in the cross-examination of their mother-D.W3 from execution of Ex.B3, there is no dispute by the plaintiff to require any further proof but for plaintiff denied in her cross-examination about the gift deed in asking to file an affidavit or come back to the witness box and state in her further examination about the gift deed.”

                  Having observed as aforesaid, this Court disposed of, the CRP No.4918 of 2015 directing the trial Court to follow the same direction to direct the plaintiff i.e. petitioner/A1 herein, to file affidavit admitting the gift deed explaining what she denied in her cross-examination or by recalling the plaintiff by virtue of this order if at all she wants to admit, else to call for the records by summoning the Sub-Registrar to prove the same. In pursuant of the Order dated 03.08.2016, the petitioner/A1 herein filed further chief-examination affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 (1) of CPC, wherein at paragraph No.3 she stated as under:

                  “3. …I admit gift deed document number 2434/2008 of Sub-Registry, Kanchikacherla executed by my mother in my favour. As the gift deed was not valid and not accepted by other joint family members, and I have not acquired any rights over the property through the said gift deed, I denied the same. The property under the gift deed was also mentioned in the plaint schedule property, my denial in my Cross-examination in regard to the gift deed is not voluntary and willful.”

18. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/complainant would contend that the petitioner/A1 as P.W1 having false evidence that she was not gifted Ac.1.00 cents of land under the Document No.2434/2008 of Sub-Registrar’s Office, Kanchikacherla, admitted in her further chief-examination that the Gift Deed Document No.2434 of 2008 was executed in her favour.

19. A perusal of the further chief-examination affidavit filed by the petitioner/A1 in O.S.No.46 of 2013 goes to show that as she did not acquire any right over the schedule property through the Gift Deed, and as it was not accepted by other joint family members, she denied the gift deed. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the property acquired by her through the gift deed was also mentioned in the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.46 of 2013 on the file of the learned XVI Additional District Judge, Krishna at Nandigama for Partition. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to come to a conclusion that the petitioner/A1 intentionally gave false evidence, or fabricated false evidence for wrongful gain or to cause wrongful loss, in fact, the property acquired by the petitioner/A1 under the Gift Deed was also mentioned in the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.46 of 2013 for Partition among all her family members and for such, no mens rea can be attributed as against the petitioner/A1.

20. Even if the entire accusations made as against the petitioner/A1 are accepted as true and correct, no prima facie case for the offences alleged is not made out against her and the chance of convicting her when the trial takes place are bleak and remote. When such is the case, there is no point in allowing her to face the entire ordeal of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is convinced and quashes the proceedings in respect of petitioner/A1.

21. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in Calendar Case No.626 of 2023 pending on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama, as against the petitioner/A1, are quashed.

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.