HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2332 OF 2008 DATE:12-08-2011 BETWEEN: M/s. Shalivahana Builders Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Executive Director, Sri B. Damodar, R/o.94, Minerva Complex, I Floor, S.D. Road, Secunderabad and another. - - - Petitioners/ A-1 and A-2. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, And another. - - - Respondents/ Complainant. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2332 OF 2008 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/A-1 and A-2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No.955 of 2007, pending on the file of the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Whereas the Petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in the Calender Case, A-1 is a Private Limited Company represented by A-2 and A-2 is the Executive Director of the Company and the Respondent No. 2 herein is the De-facto Complainant (for short, ‘the de-facto complainant’) in the Calender Case. 3. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the Accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents-State and perused the records. 5. The complaint was filed against A-1 to A-6 and it was made over to the Station House Officer, Jeedimetla P.S. under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and subsequently it was registered as Crime No.320 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 447 and 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and after conducting necessary investigation of the case, the police filed final report declaring the case as civil in nature observing that the accused got no mala fide intention in the matter and accordingly the matter was closed. Thereafter, the complainant filed protest petition and then statements of himself and his witnesses were recorded and then the case was taken on file under Sections 420, 427, 447 and 506 read with 120-B I.P.C. before the trial Court against which the present petition is filed by the accused seeking to quash the same. 6. The version taken in the complaint is as follows : The complainant purchased an open plot bearing No.216 in Survey No.302 admeasuring 200 sq. yards, situated at Gajularamaram Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from its lawful owner Smt. Bhashyam Vijaya Aruna through a registered sale deed bearing document No.10067/2003, dated 25-08-2003 issued by the Sub- Registrar’s Office, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. Smt. B. Vijaya Aruna in fact purchased the said plot from A-1 under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4700/1993, dated 15-07-1993 believing that A-1 was a reputed firm and ever since she was in the possession and enjoyment of the property. Further, she came to know that some miscreants were trying to erect basement in her site and therefore immediately she brought the same to the notice of A-1, A-2 and A.V. Srinivasa Rao, Managing Partner of M/s. Subhodaya Enterprises, Minerva complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad and so also one Jagadishwar Reddy and others for appropriate action. Further, she came to know that A-1 to A-6 fraudulently and with a malafide intention and for cheating her sold away her plot by executing a registered sale deed vide document bearing No.4008/1998, dated 02- 11-1996 in favour of one C. Agamaiah, document writer who was working with A-1, whereas A-5 executed the document on behalf of A- 3, A-4 and A-6 as their G.P.A. holder. Further, he issued notices to A-1 to A-6 to rectify the wrong with a request to cancel the registered document but no action was taken by them. 7. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-1 that when the investigation of the case was being done by the police there were negotiations between the de-facto complainant and A-1 to A-6 and then it was agreed to register 200 sq. yards of site in plot No.236 and 100 sq. yards of site in plot No.237 and accordingly registered documents bearing Nos. 6489/2007 and 7801/2007, dated 24-04-2007 were executed before the District Registrar’s office, Ranga Reddy District and Sub-Registrar’s Office at Medchal in lieu of plot No.216 of the same residential area and then the complainant withdrew the case but she filed a protest petition and hence it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings? 9. I have gone through the final report filed in the case which reveals that Smt. Padma Latha wife of Raja Rao and Smt. Shiva Padma Leela wife of D.V.V. Nagender Rao purchased part of plot Nos.215, 216, 217 and part of plot Nos.215, 216 admeasuring 137.77 Sq. yards and 147 sq. yards respectively, on 23-09-1999 from one Agamaiah, trusted document writer of A-1 and because Agamaiah worked with A-1 for a long time they got registered left over 516 Sq. yards in survey No.302 of Gajularamaram village without any financial consideration and that area was made into plots and Agamaiah sold 3 plots, as a result of which the de-facto complainant’s plot was shrinked and an area of 80 Sq. yards was left there and A-1 transferred (In whose name it was transferred not mentioned) the said land in 1996 and 200 sq. yards in survey No.214 was still vacant area then and further in stead of registering plot No.214, plot No.216 was registered in the name of Agamaiah and later subsequently constructions were made therein. Further, it is claimed that Sri Agamaiah, A-1, B. Damodar G.P.A. Holder of Shankar Reddy (A-5) executed document in good faith without verifying the plot numbers whereas A.V. Srinivasa Rao signed as witness for the same transaction. Further, it is claimed that A-2 transferred 516 Sq. yards of site to Agamaiah without any financial consideration but bearing necessary registration charges. Further, B. Vijaya Aruna sold plot No.216 to the de-facto complainant in the year 2003 whereas by that time Smt. Shiva Padma Leela and Smt. Padma Latha who purchased plots from Agamaiah made some constructions in plot No.216. Further, it is claimed that while the investigation of the case was in progress, the de-facto complainant and the accused A-1 to A-6 had negotiations and it was agreed to register 300 sq. yards of site i.e. 200 sq. yards of site in Plot No.236 and 100 Sq. yards of site in plot No.237 and A-1 to A-6 conveyed accordingly vide registered document bearing No.7801/2007, dated 24-04-2007 of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Medchal and document No.7801/2007, dated 24-04-2007 of the District Registrar’s Office, R.R. District. 10. It is pertinent to note here that the corresponding sale deeds in respect of plot Nos.236 and 237 are filed before the Court which prima- facie uphold the claim of A-1 to A-6. It appears that the matter is purely civil in nature. However, the fact that subsequently registered sale deeds were executed in favour of the de-facto complainant, by which clearly appears that A-1 to A-3 got no malafide intentions in the transaction or transactions. Therefore prosecuting A-1 and A-2 including A-2 to A-7 in the case is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, ultimately the proceedings in C.C. No.955 of 2007, pending on the file of the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 12-08-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 228 CRIMINAL PETITION No.2332 OF 2008 August, 12, 2011 DSH