IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2723 OF 2007 Between: Nadimpalli Suryanarayana Raju ..... PETITIONER AND P. Narender Reddy and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2723 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A3 in F.I.R.No.1397 of 2006 on the file of Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad. 2. The allegations in the complaint are that respondent No.1 alleged that the family of A1 were the owners of the land admeasuring Ac.9-23 guntas in Survey No.53, 59,71 and 92 of Bagh-e-Ameer Village, Ranga Reddy District. They obtained layout for their land in the year 1979. They executed power of attorney in the year 1979 – 1980 in favour of Jaichand. The power of attorney sold the lands to 65 persons including K. Leela, W/o. K. Govardhan Bose, bearing Plot No.26, in Survey Nos.53 and 59 situated at Bagh-e-Ameer Village, Balanagar Mandal, from the share of A1 vide registered document No.6256/1981, who in turn sold to K. Suryanarayana, S/o. K. Anjaneyelu, vide registered document No.3452/1983. Later the son and the grandson of the complainant purchased the said plot under registered document No.7402/2003. On enquiry, he came to know that on 31.08.2005, A2 and late Bali Reddy have fabricated and forged the document, dated 24.12.1972, together with applications and affidavits purported to have been signed by the original owners for validation of the document dated 24.12.1972. It was alleged that the document, dated 24.12.1972, was a forged, created and fabricated document to show that the owners of the lands borrowed loan and mortgaged the property and the document was titled as Sale Deed in order to facilitate A1 and late Bali Reddy to sell the land and recover the dues in case the owners fail to repay them. It was alleged that the document did not indicate the date on which the loan was advanced and the date by which the loan to be repaid. The document is not registered and that the same requires registration. It was alleged that relinquishment deed dated 24.12.1975 was executed by original owners, Shankar Rao and 23 others, who are so called unregistered partial owners of land in favour of A2 and late Bali Reddy with an intention to grab the land. It was alleged that A2 and late Bali Reddy have resorted to cheat the people with forged document and appear to have trapped the original owners luring them to sell the lands. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no privity of contract between the de facto complainant and the petitioner; that the petitioner has not made any false statement; that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration; that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that A1 to A3 having purchased the old stamp papers, manipulated the documents with a view to cause wrongful loss to the real owner; that a prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner and hence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under this code. 6. The allegation is that all the accused are purchasing various stamp papers with old dates and manipulating records so as to cause wrongful loss to the de facto complainant. At this stage, it cannot be determined whether the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the land for valuable consideration or not. Therefore, the allegations made out a prima facie case. Hence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 30, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2723 OF 2007 July 30, 2010