THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147 and 2148 of 2007 Dated: 10th February, 2010 Between: Mohd.Imran & another …Petitioners AND The State of A.P rep. By its Public Prosecutor and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147 and 2148 of 2007 ORDER: These six petitions are filed by the accused Nos.10 and 11 (A-10 and A-11) for quashing F.I.Rs in Crime Nos.10/2007, 36/2007, 37/2007, 38/2007, 39/2007 and 40/2007 of Narsingi Police Station relating to ofences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 452, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. 2) The 2nd respondents in all these petitions are defacto- complainants, who filed private complaints in VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar against A-1 to A-13. The Magistrate forwarded all the private complaints to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. 3) Subject matter of these cases is Ac.1-28 guntas of wet land in S.Nos.45 and 46 of Neknampur village. There is no dispute that the disputed land originally belonging to late Chakali Balaiah @ Pargi Balaiah. The accused are not claiming entire Ac.1-28 guntas as belonging to them. They are only claiming Ac.0-15 guntas of land under various purchases. It is alleged that five of the complainants and late husband of the 6th complainant are sons of Pargi Balaiah and that they are entitled for the said land and that the complainants’ father had younger brother with the same name as Pargi Balaiah. Both the said Balaiahs are no more. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 claiming to be legal heirs of younger Balaiah, sold part of the disputed land to the other accused under different registered documents. The purchasers also made further sales by way of registered sale deeds and G.P.As. It is alleged that all the said transactions took place in collusion with the Sub-Registrar, Rajendranagar and Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar. The petitioners filed copies of revenue records and registered documents to trace their title to younger Balaiah. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that because of boom in real estate, false complaints were given by the 2nd respondents in all these petitions with a view to force the petitioners to part with some money and as abuse of process of Court. 4) Truth or falsity of the cases cannot be decided in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the police to investigate into that aspect before filing final report before the Magistrate under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. It is open to the petitioners to approach the police and place all the material before the police and guide the police to come to correct conclusion. It is contended that falsity of the case is evident from the fact that two of the accused namely A-1 and A-6 died long prior to the alleged date of offence. It is stated that A-1 died in the year 2002 and that A-6 died on 15.10.2005 and that they could not have participated in the offence which is stated to have taken place on 16.12.2006. It may be a fact that the case filed against dead person is nothing but falsity in so far as it relates to the incident on 16.12.2006. But, at the same time such presumption of falsity cannot be extended to living accused persons. It may be noted that the case relates to several offences including those under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 I.P.C. In so far as those offences are concerned, death of A-1 and A-6 in the years 2002 and 2005 may not have any bearing. Death of A-1 and A-6 has got bearing only on the incident which is stated to have taken place on 16.12.2006. 5) It is further contended by the petitioners’ counsel that when there is only one cause of action on 16.12.2006, filing of six private complaints separately by the complainants is nothing but abuse of process of Court and that it is contrary to Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. Question of applicability of the said provision of law arises only when the police filed final report into Court after investigation. Having regard to the said provision of law, the police may choose to file single final report/charge sheet in all the crimes put together because cause of action for all the crimes happened to be one and the same. 6) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that taking allegations in the complaints for granted for the sake of argument, they will not make out the alleged offences therein. No doubt, none of the 2nd respondents is a party to any documents entered into between the accused inter se. When they are not parties to these documents, the question of cheating the 2nd respondents in these petitions will not arise at all. Similarly there was no entrustment of any property or valuable security by any of the complainants to any of the accused persons. Therefore, question of applicability of offence of breach of trust to facts of this case does not arise at all. In so far as rest of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act are concerned, it is a question of fact which has to be investigated into by the police before coming to any conclusion. This Court cannot interfere with investigation of those offences at this stage. 7) In the result, the petitions are partly allowed quashing F.I.Rs in Crime Nos.10/2007, 36/2007, 37/2007, 38/2007, 39/2007 and 40/2007 in so far as offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C are concerned. The petitions are partly dismissed in so far as other offences are concerned. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 10, 2010 KSH HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.2143, 2144, 2145, 2146, 2147 and 2148 of 2007 Dated: 10th February, 2010 KSH