HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2971 OF 2008 DATE:09-09-2011 BETWEEN: Chittoju Ramesh and three others. - - - Petitioners/ A-1 to A-4. AND Mohammed Ishaq Ahmed and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2971 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A-1 to A-4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.93 of 2008, dated 15-05-2008 of Khammam I Town Police station, Khammam, registered for offences punishable under Sections 182, 191, 207, 415, 420, 421, 423 and 424 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 to A-4, the Respondent No.1 is the defacto complainant in the F.I.R. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the First Information Report. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State. 5. The prosecution case is as follows : The de-facto complainant is a native of Khammam and he has been presently residing in Hyderabad. He and his brothers got some ancestral lads in Khammam town at Mustafa Nagar in Survey Nos.481, 482, 483 and 484 admeasuring about Ac.8-00 guntas situated at Kuntitadu Chenu. In the year 1979 the said lands were converted into house plots and were partitioned, in which the de-facto complainant got 32 plots to his share out of which, he sold some house plots and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the remaining house plots. Further, he executed registered sale deed vide document bearing No.859/2008, dated 29- 01-2008 in favour of one Krishna Mohan in respect of a part of house plot No.110 and one compact bit in house plot No.111 to an extent of 278.15 Sq. yards and then came to know that the house plot situated towards north of the plot sold to one Krishna Mohan was in the name of A-2 and A-4 which was not sold by him to either to A-2 or A-4 or to anybody at any point of time. Further, his enquiries revealed that A-1 and his father by name Venkataram Narasaiah illegally occupied the house plots without his consent or knowledge and also got created link registered documents in collusion with A-2 to A-4 with dishonest intention to make believe that they (A-1 to A-4) were the real owners of the house plots. It is also alleged that registered sale deed bearing document No.857/2006 for an extent of 275-00 Sq. yards was executed by the father of A-1 in favour of A-4, another registered document bearing document No.4864/2005, dated 23-05-2005 for an extent of 275-00 Sq. yards, was executed by A-1 in favour of A-2 and another document bearing document No.4470/2006, dated 07-06-2006 for an extent of 275-00 Sq. yards was executed by the father of A-1 in favour of A-3 and in all those three documents the accused mentioned the house number as 5-2-246 and in fact claiming that door number A- 1’s father got created the three registered sale deeds. It is further alleged that A-1 being Senior Assistant in the District Collector’s Office, Khammam influenced the Municipal Authorities there and obtained house Nos.5-2-246, 5-2-245/3 and 5-2-245/2 respectively, having created fraudulent record whereas they are quite contrary to the house numbers shown in the three registered sale deeds in the names of A-2 to A-4. Further, relevant voters list does not disclose the house numbers as 5-2-246, 5-2-245/3 and 5-2-245/2, which clearly establish the complicity of A-1 to A-4. Further, thus A-1 to A-4 cheated the de-facto complainant by creating link-registered documents. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the de-facto complainant executed sale deed dated 12-06-1979 in favour of Chittoju Venkataram Narasaiah, who is the father of A-1, in respect of 600 sq. yards of site and brother of the de-facto complainant executed another sale deed dated 16-12-1981 in favour of the wife of Chittoju Venkataram Narasaiah for 800 Sq. yards of site, another sale deed dated 11-12-1982 for 200 Sq. yards in favour of Chittoju Venkataram Narasaiah and Venkataram Narasaiah constructed house in the year 1982 in those plots and the Municipality of Khammam assigned house No.5-2-246 for the property and ever since Chittoju Venkataram Narasaiah has been paying necessary house tax for the property and he also obtained electricity connection for the property and Chittoju Venkataram Narasaiah and his wife converted that 1600 Sq. yards of site into 8 plots and sold 7 plots to third parties including A-2 to A-4 and also executed a Gift Deed in favour of his grand son in respect of one plot. It is not disputed about the sales referred by the prosecution. It is further claimed that A-2 to A-4 who purchased their sites bonafidely have been in possession and enjoyment of the sites since 1982 i.e., since 24 years and their names have been mutated in the municipal records for the sites. Whereas they are bona fide purchasers of the property they got no need to create any documents after 24 years. Further, A-3 filed O.S. No.251 of 2008 against one Challa Krishna Mohan for injunction (No Court name is given). Further, the allegations made by the de-facto complainant are false and hence the proceedings are nothing but abuse of process of Court. 7. Copies of relevant documents are filed before the Court which include tax receipts dated 09-02-1988 (3 in number) and demand notices two in number dated 17-05-1995, 04-06-1992 and 23-08-1997 and 5 receipts in which no dates are found in respect of assessment No.5-2-246 or assessment No.5-2-241/1 respectively. 8. Learned counsel for the accused has argued in accordance with the pleas taken in the petition. He mainly argues that there is clear record to the effect that in 1997 itself the father of A-1 namely Chittoju Venkatarama Narasaiah purchased the property and accordingly he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and after lapse of 24 years he sold the sites therein under registered sale deeds to A-2 to A-4 and accordingly they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and absolutely there is no basis to say that any measures were taken by the de-facto complainant questioning the sale deeds and the possession of the father of A-1 and also A-2 to A-4 over the property or sites which prima-facie establish that a false report was given to the police by the de-facto complainant and hence it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of learned counsel for the de-facto complainant that the investigation of the case is pending and at this stage it is difficult to say as to whether the claim of A-1 to A-4 is true or not and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Therefore, the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings? 11. When it is the claim of the de-facto complainant that he and his brother converted their properties into house plots and they sold some house plots to others and subsequently they came to know that the father of A-1 and also A-1 involved in creating false registered sale deeds in favour of A-1 and also A-2 to A-4 respectively, the same factor therefore is to be ascertained. Simply because there was long gap between the alleged date of purchase of the property by the father of A-1 from the de-facto complainant and his brother or brothers and selling the properties to A-2 to A-4 and it is also shown that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties, those circumstances are not sufficient to uphold the claim of A-1 to A-4 (those transactions are true). At this stage, the merits of the case cannot be gone into. It is not un-natural, if such a fraud was noticed after a long lapse of time which of course is to be determined on the basis of collecting relevant material collected during the investigation of the case. Unless landlords reside nearby their house plots or they frequently visit their house plots or they engage others to safeguard the plots, such delays in taking necessary actions are likely to occur or may occur. However, unless the police come to a conclusion that a false document was created in favour of the father of A-1 in 1979, they should not file the corresponding charge sheet and even though it is filed the Court concerned with should not take cognizance of it. The claim put forth by the de-facto complainant and also his corresponding statements alone are not sufficient to do so in the absence of any scientific evidence with regards to the actual complicity of A-1 to A-4 in the matter. 12. Therefore I am not inclined to uphold the claim of A-1 to A-4 observing that it is not a stage to quash the proceedings, whereas necessary investigation of the case should be allowed to continue for the determination of the matter. It is also judicious to give an opportunity to A-1 to A-4 to renew their application to quash the proceedings after the completion of the investigation of the case, if it is then found that no prima-facie case is made out against them. Subject to the above observations, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:09-09-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 104 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2971 OF 2008 September, 09, 2011 DSH