THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.P.No.5629 of 2007 Date : 4-3-2010 Between : Md.Habib-ur-Rahaman and another .. Petitioners and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.P.No.5629 of 2007 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/A-1 & A-3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.148/2007 dated 16-7-2007 on the file of P.S. Shamirpet, Cyberabad against the petitioners/A-1 and A-3 in the interest of justice and pass such other suitable orders. 2. Sri S.Bhooma Goud, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners had pointed out to the allegations made in the complaint and would maintain that the allegations are as vague as they can be and hence the proceedings are to be quashed. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that the factual controversies will be further investigated into. 4. Sri K.Surender, the learned Counsel representing respondents 2 to 9 would submit that specific allegations had been made and apart from the same, the list of documents had been furnished - copy of G.P.A., cancellation of deed and also several certified copies of the sale deeds and also certain other documents and inasmuch as further investigation may have to be done in this regard, at this stage on the ground that certain details had not been furnished, the proceedings cannot be quashed. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the complainants along with their late brother Mohammed Osman had executed a General Power of Attorney on 20-8-1992 bearing Document No.1903/1992 in favour of their brother the petitioner No.1/A-1 in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 113, 117, 118, 69, 68, 395, 396, 320, 322 and 409 situate at Kotlur village, Shamirpet Mandal, Rangareddy District and he was authorized to sell the lands to the prospective purchasers. It is also further alleged that the 1st petitioner/A-1 taking advantage of the relationship and G.P.A. executed by the complainant Nos.1 to 4 and 8 and late Mohammed Osman, had misused the G.P.A. in collusion with A-2 and A-3 and brought into existence the alleged sale deeds which were not within the purview of the G.P.A. and conspired to cheat the complainants. It is further stated that these allegations made by the complainants are very vague and ambiguous and without any specific case against the petitioners. The allegations leveled by the respondents 2 to 9 that the 1st petitioner/A-1 was brought into existence the alleged sale deeds which were not within the purview of G.P.A. are made without disclosing the specific sale deeds executed by the 1st petitioner/A1. 7. It is also further stated that it is alleged by the complainants that A-1, knowing that late Mohammed Osman expired on 1-1-2003 had executed sale deeds in favour of A-2 and K.Purushotham Reddy even though the G.P.A. executed by Mohammed Osman was no longer in force. It is stated that the complaint does not disclose what are the specific sale deeds executed by the 1st petitioner/A-1 in favour of A-2 and K.Purushotham Reddy specifically and therefore these allegations are vague, ambiguous and without any specific case. It is stated that it is further alleged by the complainants that the 1st petitioner/A-1 is making alterations in the G.P.A. is without any force and not specific and the said allegations is vague and ambiguous. The complaint does not disclose the alterations made in the G.P.A. The allegations of the complainants that A-1 to A-3 had colluded and brought into existence the alleged sale deeds by causing wrongful loss for wrongful gain is without any details of the specific sale deeds brought into existence by A-1 to A-3. It is stated that it is further alleged by the complainants that the 1st petitioner/A-1 fraudulently and with dishonest intention fabricated the G.P.A. by making necessary alterations and the said allegation also is without any details as to what are the specific alterations made by the 1st petitioner/A-1 and these allegations are vague, vexatious and ambiguous. 8. Further it is stated that the contents of the complaint do not constitute any offence as alleged by the complainants. The allegations made are vague, ambiguous, vexatious and without any prima facie case and there is no substance to constitute the alleged offences against the petitioners. The contents of the complaint do not constitute any offence under Sections 415, 420, 423, 468 and 471 IPC r/w. Section 120-B IPC. No prima facie case of any offence alleged against the petitioners had been made out and the case against the petitioners is cryptic without any substance and the same is abuse of process of law and the same are liable to be quashed. 9. It may be true that certain specific details as such had not been furnished. But however, several documents had been produced along with the complaint. Even otherwise, in the light of the allegations made in the complaint, since these being factual controversies, it may not be just and proper to interfere with the proceedings under challenge at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana Date : 4-3-2010 AM