HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1874 OF 2010 Date: 12.04.2010 Between: Vistarla Vignan Kumar ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its PP and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1874 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC in C.C.No.43 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chirala. He seeks quashing of Criminal Proceedings therein. It is prosecution case that in the year 2004, the accused/petitioner approached the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and requested him to purchase house site in S.No.322/1 of Perala in T.S.No.343 of Chirala Municipality of an extent of 190 sq. yards, and made him to believe that the said house site is in the name of his mother Vistharla Dhanamma. It is further alleged that the accused showed Photostat copy of Town Survey Field Register extract of Chirala Municipality showing name of the petitioner’s mother for the said property. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent purchased the said house site by paying Rs.3,75,000/- and obtained registered sale deed from Dhanamma on 19.05.2004. It is stated that subsequently Dhanamma died on 05.05.2007. While so, the 2nd respondent gave report to the police on 05.05.2007 to the effect that when rumors were afloat about Dhanamma’s name not finding place for this property in Municipal records, the 2nd respondent verified Municipal records and found that Dhanamma’s name does not find place therein. Therefore, the 2nd respondent felt that he was cheated by the petitioner and lodged the report with the police. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that on the basis of rumors, no report can be lodged with the police and no charge sheet can be laid by the police before the Magistrate. Neither report to the police nor charge sheet is based on rumors. When there were rumors, the 2nd respondent went to Municipal office and verified Municipal records and then came to the conclusion that the Municipal records do not show name of Dhanamma as holder of the property sold to the 2nd respondent. Thus, the case is not based on rumors. The case started on verification of rumors. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per maxim “Actio Personalis Moritor-cum-Persona”, the petitioner who is a third party to the document should not have been prosecuted. Even though the petitioner is not a party as executant in the registered sale deed, as per the 2nd respondent’s allegations, it is the petitioner who made the false representation and who showed the false Photostat copy to him. Therefore, the finger is directly pointing towards the petitioner who is son of the executant. In that view of the matter, the above maxim directly applies to the petitioner as he is the person who is stated to have made the false representation and who is stated to have shown the false Photostat copy of Municipal record. It is a question of fact to decide about truth or falsity of allegations against the petitioner. The trial court after recording evidence of both the parties will decide the same. This Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot go into that question and decide the same. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:12.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1874 OF 2010 Date: 12.04.2010 Gk.