HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5492 OF 2008 DATE:08-04-2011 BETWEEN: P. Laxman Rao and another. - - - Petitioners/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5492 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.57 of 2005 on the file of Station House Officer, Madannapet P.S. Hyderabad, in C.C. No.127 of 2007 on the file of learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 468, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 156 of Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower Court. 3. The complaint was filed briefly on the following grounds : The complainant is an illiterate old woman aged about 75 years and she is the absolute owner of house property bearing No.17-1- 30/1/0 admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards together with 95 Sq. Yards of site which comes totally to 295 Sq. Yards. She wanted to construct 4 Mulgies in the vacant site and one open hall in the first floor of it for use about which she discussed with the accused who happened to be her close relative. In that pretext, the accused had taken her to some office and obtained her signatures on various documents on the guise of obtaining necessary M.C.H. permission, whereas having believed them, she complied with his directions. Further, the complainant constructed structures with the help of the accused spending Rs.1,00,000/- apart from 8 tolas of gold on different occasions. Further, after completing the construction of 4 Mulgies she rented out the same to different persons, further she also leased out the first floor of the house to the accused for running a beauty parlour. Subsequently, she came to know that the accused intended to sell two Mulgies and the hall in the first floor of the building having kept with him the original documents. Further, the accused got issued false notice dated 04-02- 2004 claiming to be the owner of an extent of 43-47 Sq. Yards of site out of the 95 cents open site for which she gave suitable reply. Further, the accused misrepresented and misguided the complainant and played fraud against her with an intention to cheat her and got executed registered sale deed vide document No.3538/2000 dated 30- 10-2000 admeasuring 43-47 Sq. Yards on the North Eastern portion on the said pretext. Further, she filed a suit against the accused i.e., O.S. No.1631 of 2004 on the file of the court of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the cancellation of the sale deed dated 30-10-2000 and she also filed I.A. No.319 of 2004 for granting temporary injunction in respect of the same property against the accused and obtained ex parte order. Further, therefore the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 468 506 of I.P.C. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that on the same day i.e. on 30-10-2000 the complainant executed one Gift Deed in favour of his only son Sri Chandrasekhar vide document No.3537 of 2000 in respect of 43-47 Sq. Yards out of the site of 95 Sq. Yards and the remaining half portion on the northern side was sold to the petitioner for Rs.91,000/- under the said sale deed and on the same day both the documents were registered and the suit filed by her was dismissed for default and no steps were taken to restore the suit and the accused only made constructions in the property and those circumstances prima-facie establish that the calendar case is misconceived and created by false allegations. 5. The allegations made against the accused are supported by record. There is question of fact to be established basing upon evidence to be recorded with reference to the alleged offence. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings and the petition is dismissed. The lower Court has to frame necessary charges basing on the material available. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHANR EDDY, J Dated: 08-04-2011 Dsh/Bcj.