Cri. Revn. Case No. 611 of 2009. Case: Nischint Constructions and Ors. Vs Dr. Pasumarthi S. N. Murthy and Anr.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Cri. Revn. Case No. 611 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: T. Bali Reddy, Adv. and For Respondents: C. Padmanabha Reddy (for No. 1) and Additional Public Prosecutor (for No. 2) |
| Judges | B. Seshasayana Reddy, J. |
| Issue | Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Section 468 |
| Citation | 2010 CriLJ 596 |
| Judgement Date | October 08, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order dated 23-3-2009 of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in M. P. No. 417 of 2009 in C. C. No. 40 of 2002.
2. Back ground facts of the case leading to filing of this revision by A1 M/s. Nischint Constructions, rep. by its Proprietrix Smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy, A2 Smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy, A3 Ch. Baba Prasada Reddy and A5 Ch. Rajyalakshmi are: R1 Dr. Pasumathi S.N. Murthy owns 500 square yards and whereas his wife owns 300 square yards in the premises bearing No. 8-2-322, Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Apart from 300 square yards his wife owns some other extent also in the premises. He holds GPA on behalf of his wife. Al is a proprietary concern. A2 is the proprietorix of Al proprietary concern. A3 is the GPA holder of A2. R1 entered into development agreement with A1 represented by A3 who is GPA holder on behalf of the proprietorix. Ex. P. 2 is the copy of the development agreement between the parties. As per the development agreement, A3 was to construct 3 storied building (ground + 1st floor + 2nd floor) in an area of 800 square yards. A3, as a GPA holder, has to obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities. The development agreement speaks of the terms and conditions between the parties. The 1st respondent has given GPA in favour of A3. A3 had shown blue print plans, which were to be submitted to municipal authorities for necessary sanction.
3. It is the contention of 1st respondent that A3 commenced the construction work contrary to the terms and conditions of the development agreement and that A3 as GPA holder of A2, who is the proprietorix of Al firm, forged his signatures on the blue print plan showing the extent under the development agreement as 1163 square yards. It is also his case that A3 executed sale deeds in favour of his brothers and sister-in-law. A5 is no other than his sister-in-law being wife of his brother-Sudheer Reddy. When the Corporation attempted to demolish the unauthorized constructions, A3 basing on the GPA issued by R1 filed a suit and obtained interim injunction. R1 on coming to know of the suit, he himself got impleaded as a party and ultimately, the suit ended in dismissal. The purchasers approached the civil Court and secured interim orders initially and subsequently, the orders came to be vacated. RI approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum against Al to A3, which was allowed partly and granted certain reliefs.
4. R1 filed a complaint before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, alleging, inter alia, that 3rd petitioner herein as GPA holder of 2nd petitioner (who is proprietorix of 1st petitioner firm) forged his signatures on the blue print submitted to municipal authorities for approval. It is also stated in the complaint that all the petitioners and Sudheer Reddy colluded together and fabricated the documents so as to cause wrongful loss to him. The complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate as C. C. No. 40 of 2002. Thereupon, the petitioners herein and Sudheer Reddy filed Cri. P. No. 3484 of 2002 under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 40 of 2002. The Criminal Petition came to be dismissed to the extent of the petitioners herein while allowing the petition in respect of Sudheer Reddy by an order dated 28-4-2006. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
The third accused obtained the signature of the complainant on the set of blue prints for...
To continue reading
Request your trial