THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1045 of 2009 (Dated : 29-09-2011) Between: Rapelly Rajender S/o Laxminarayana …Petitioner A n d The State of A.P., rep. by its Station House Officer And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.1045 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by Rapelly Rajender, Accused No.5 in Crime No.413 of 2008 of Siricilla P.S., to quash the First Information Report, so far as it relates to him. 2. Chenamaneni Satya-2nd respondent herein presented a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siricilla alleging interalia that the petitioner herein along with other accused fabricated the sale deed bearing No.1892 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008 said to have been executed by Kola Rajalingam in favour of Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1) in respect of Survey No.532 admeasuring Ac.1-30 guntas and subsequently, Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1) executed a registered sale deed bearing No.1918 of 2008 dated 15-3-2008 in favor of the petitioner on 14-3-2008. The petitioner herein, Edimalla Linga Reddy (A-6) and K.Chandramouli (A-7) obstructed the de facto complainant from ploughing the land and threatened her with dire consequences. The said complaint came to be forwarded to the Station House Officer, Siricilla P.S., under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereupon, the S.H.O., Siricila P.S., registered a case in Crime No.413 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 419, 467, 471 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and issued F.I.R. Hence this application by A-5 with a prayer stated supra. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is no way concerned with the registered sale deed executed by Kola Raja Lingam executing the registered sale deed in favour of the Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1) and even if there is any impersonation regarding the said sale deed, the petitioner cannot be made responsible. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioner paid consideration of Rs.63,000/- to Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1) and obtained a registered sale deed from him. 4. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 02-2- 2009. The 2nd respondent-de facto complainant entered appearance through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way involved in execution of the registered sale deed by Kola Raja Lingam in favour of Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1) and he neither figured as an attesting witness nor as an identifying witness in respect of the sale deed. A further submission has been made that the petitioner purchased Ac.1-30 gts of land in Sy.No.532 under registered sale deed dated 15-3-2008 and any action of him to protect the land purchased by him cannot be categorized as an offence under any of the provisions of the IPC. Learned counsel took me to the registered sale deed dated 15-3-2008, copy of which finds place at page No.11 of the material papers filed along with the petition, in support of his submissions. 7. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant submits that the petitioner is instrumental in fabricating the document relating to the property owned by the 2nd respondent and therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the F.I.R. In a way, his submission is that since the investigation is being taken up by examining Kola Raja Lingam, it cannot be said that there is no role of the petitioner in fabricating the sale deed dated 12-3- 2008 said to have been executed by Kola Raja Lingam. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Two sale deeds have been referred in the report submitted by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant. The first sale deed is dated 12-3- 2008 executed by Kola Rajalingam in favour of Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1). The 2nd sale deed is dated 15-3-2008 executed by Immaneni Linga Rao in favour of the petitioner, who has been figured as A-5. The petitioner neither figured as an attesting witness nor as an identifying witness to the sale deed dated 12-3-2008. Indeed, he is a purchaser under sale deed dated 15-3-2008 executed by Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1). A copy of the report submitted by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant indicate that her signature has been forged in the sale deed dated 12-3-2008 standing in the name of Immaneni Linga Rao (A-1). No specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner in respect of registered sale deed dated 12-3-2008 allegedly executed by the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant in favour of A-1. Therefore, continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.413 of 2008 amounts to abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.413 of 2008 of Siricilla P.S., are hereby quashed. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.29-09-2011 *RAR