THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl.Petition No.2975 of 2008 Date: 09.11.2011 Between: Adapala Brahmaiah … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Crl. Petition No.2975 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are wife and husband. They seek for quashment of First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.47 of 2008 on the file of the Venkatagiri Police Station, Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. 2. The teachers of Guduru Division have registered a Cooperative Society under the name and style of Guduru Division Teachers Cooperative House Building Society Limited. The aim of the society was to provide house sites to its members. The society purchased Ac.25.73 cents of Periyavaram Village and Ac.2.83 cents in Chevireddypalli Village from Raja of Venkatagiri in 1979. These lands are situate in Survey No.165/2. The purchased land was converted into house plots. In all 407 house plots were demarcated. It was known as Prasanthi Upadhyaya Nagar. 3. The first petitioner has been working as a teacher in R.V.M. High School, Venkatagiri. The second petitioner is his wife. 4. The case of the petitioners is: a) The first petitioner became a member of the society and consequently was allotted plot No.400. Plot No.402 was allotted to one Smt. K. Hannamma. The second petitioner, who is the wife of the first petitioner purchased plot No.402 from the original allottee Smt. K. Hannamma. Plot No.401 is the northern abuttal of plot No.400 purchased by the first petitioner. The plot No.401 is a triangular bit and was not useful to anyone. As such, with the permission of the President of the society, the first petitioner constructed a shed in plot No.401 in 1994. The first petitioner has been in possession of plot No.401 ever since. b) The second respondent is the Assistant Registrar and Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Venkatgiri. He was appointed as liquidator of the society by the District Cooperative Officer. The second respondent was appointed to take possession of vacant site in the lay out of Prasanthi Upadhyaya Nagar, Venkatagiri. The second respondent attempted to remove the structures from the site in possession of the petitioners. As the second respondent refused to allot plot No.401 in favour of the petitioners at the market value rate, the first petitioner filed Writ Petition No.14028 of 2007 on the file of this Court. An interim direction was issued to the second respondent through the Writ Petition not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over plot No.401 admeasuring 25 ankanams on the condition that the first petitioner should deposit ` 1,00,000/- towards tentative cost of plot No.401. The first petitioner accordingly deposited ` 1,00,000/-. c) While the interim orders in W.P.No.14028 of 2007 are pending, the second respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners committed the offences under Sections 447, 427, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. It is the case of the petitioners that the FIR in Crime No.47 of 2008 registered by Venkatagiri Police Station in terms of the complaint is unsustainable and more so, in view of the interim directions in W.P.No.14028 of 2007 and that the FIR consequently is liable to be quashed. 5. Smt. K. Hemalatha, learned counsel representing the Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner in terms of the complaint and the FIR lodged by the second respondent. 6. The second respondent contended that receipt bearing No.763, dated 10.03.1993 was issued in favour of Smt. K. Hannamma in respqect of plot No.402. The second respondent further contended that the petitioners tampered with the receipt No.763 as if Plot No.400 was allotted to the first petitioner. It is the case of the second respondent that the first petitioner and the second petitioner are in occupation of plot Nos.400 and 401 highhandedly and that they have also tampered with the records of the society by manipulating receipt No.763. The petitioners consequently committed the offences under Sections 247, 427, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. This is the gist of the complaint. 7. It is contended by Sri P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner purchased plot No.400 from the society and the second petitioner purchased plot No.402 from Smt. K.Hannamma. He submitted that the question of tampering with the receipt does not arise as the petitioners are bona fide and real vendees of plot Nos.400 and 402 of the society. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint is prima facie false and is liable to be rejected. 8. It may be noticed that the complaint does not refer to plot No.400, which the first petitioner allegedly purchased from the society. The complaint merely refers to receipt No.763, dated 10.03.1993 and avers that the petitioners manipulated the same to show as if its stood in the name of the first petitioner. Thus, they claimed that receipt No.763 was forged and was used as genuine by the petitioners 1 and 2, thereby exposing themselves to liability under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. It is the further case of the second respondent that in the process of forging the receipt, the petitioners cheated the society and thus committed the offence u/s.420 IPC. 9. The allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Evidently, this is not the stage to examine whether the allegations would ultimately stand or not. Suffice it to examine whether a prima facie case is made out from the complaint. It is the case of the petitioners that receipt No.763 was issued by the society in favour of the first petitioner when he purchased plot No.400. It is the case of the second respondent that receipt No.763 according to the records of the society, relates to plot No.402 purchased by Smt. K. Hannamma. Consequently, the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC prima facie are made out against the accused/petitioners from the complaint. 10. It is the contention of the second respondent that the petitioners have squatted over plot Nos.400, 401 and 402 by way of trespass. Again, the offence u/s.447 IPC prima facie is made out. Yet another allegation made against the accused in the complaint was u/s.427 IPC. Curiously, there is no whisper in the complaint about the mischief caused by the petitioners leading to the damage to the property. I, therefore, considered that the prosecution prima facie failed to make out the offence u/s.427 IPC from the very complaint. 11. In that view of the matter, the complaint is liable to be quashed inasmuch as it relates to the offence u/s.427 IPC. The complaint is sustainable so far as the rest of the allegations leading to the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 447 IPC. This petition is liable to be allowed in respect of the offence u/s.427 IPC only and is liable to be rejected in respect of the rest of the offences levelled against the petitioners/accused. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is ordered. The FIR in Crime No.47 of 2008 on the file of the Venkatagiri Police Station is quashed to the extent of the offence u/s.427 IPC. The police are permitted to proceed with the case in respect of the rest of the offences alleged against the petitioners. _______________ K.G. SHANKAR, J Date: 09.11.2011 Isn