Property Dispute in Hyderabad: Supreme Court’s Verdict on Criminal Proceedings

The case of M. Srikanth vs. State of Telangana & Anr. revolves around a family property dispute that escalated into criminal proceedings. The case was brought before the Supreme Court to determine whether the criminal charges should be quashed or whether they warranted further investigation.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose over the ownership of a house located at Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. The complainant, Fatima Hasna, alleged that her brother, Akramuddin Hasan (Accused No.1), had fraudulently claimed sole ownership of the property by fabricating documents. The complainant claimed that the house originally belonged to their father, Afzaluddin Hassan, who passed away in 1996. According to her, the property should have been inherited jointly by herself, her three sisters, and her brother.

The core allegations included:

• Accused No.1 created a forged will in Urdu, dated April 2, 1950, showing that their grandmother had gifted the property to their father for his lifetime, with vested remainder to Accused No.1.
• Accused No.1 also allegedly created a fraudulent document, “Deed of Confirmation (Hiba Bil Musha),” dated March 8, 1990, transferring the property to himself.
• Based on these documents, Accused No.1 executed a registered lease deed on December 1, 2008, in favor of M. Srikanth (Accused No.4).
• M. Srikanth then sub-leased the property to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) (Accused No.5) for setting up a petrol pump.
• The complainant alleged a criminal conspiracy between the accused to deprive her of her property rights.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner, M. Srikanth (Accused No.4), filed an appeal challenging the criminal proceedings against him. His arguments included:

• He was an innocent party who had lawfully obtained the lease from Accused No.1, believing him to be the rightful owner.
• The property dispute was civil in nature and should not have been converted into a criminal case.
• The complainant had already filed multiple civil suits regarding the property, and the matter should be resolved in civil court.
• The High Court had quashed the case against other accused parties, including HPCL officers (Accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9), and the same principle should apply to him.

Respondents’ Arguments

The complainant, Fatima Hasna, opposed the quashing of the case, arguing:

• M. Srikanth was aware that Accused No.1 was not the sole owner but still proceeded with the lease agreement.
• The criminal conspiracy was evident as Accused No.4 facilitated the property transaction despite the ongoing disputes.
• The lease to HPCL and subsequent construction of a petrol pump caused irreparable damage to her property rights.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the case and made the following key observations:

“The allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute a prima facie case against Accused No.4. The dispute is of a civil nature and should be addressed through civil proceedings.”

Further, the Court noted:

• The main allegations of forgery and fabrication were directed at Accused No.1, not Accused No.4.
• The complainant had already filed several civil suits regarding the ownership of the property, and the matter should be adjudicated in those cases.
• The lease agreement between Accused No.4 and HPCL was conducted in good faith, without any criminal intent.
• The High Court had correctly quashed the case against the HPCL officers and should have done the same for Accused No.4.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of M. Srikanth, stating:

• The criminal proceedings against M. Srikanth (Accused No.4) were quashed.
• The property dispute should be settled in civil court, not through criminal charges.
• The complainant’s separate appeal challenging the quashing of charges against the HPCL officers was dismissed.
• The Court reiterated that civil disputes should not be misused as criminal cases to harass the parties involved.

Legal and Policy Implications

This ruling sets an important precedent for property disputes:

• Criminal cases should not be used to settle civil disputes. Courts will dismiss such cases where there is no evidence of actual criminal intent.
• Good faith transactions, such as lease agreements, will be protected unless there is clear evidence of conspiracy.
• High Courts must apply consistent reasoning when quashing cases for multiple accused parties.
• Civil remedies should be exhausted before resorting to criminal litigation in property matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that property disputes should be resolved through civil proceedings rather than criminal charges. By quashing the case against M. Srikanth, the Court prevented the misuse of criminal law in inheritance disputes. This judgment provides clarity on the distinction between civil and criminal matters, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to unwarranted legal harassment.

Petitioner Name: M. Srikanth.
Respondent Name: State of Telangana & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Navin Sinha, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Hyderabad, India.
Judgment Date: 21-10-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: M. Srikanth vs State of Telangana & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 21-10-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category