IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETIITON No.159 of 2008 Between: Adari Suri Apparao. … Petitioner And Rajana Gurunadh Venkata Ramakrishna and nine others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.159 OF 2008 ORDER:- Petitioner/complainant filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the orders of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellamanchili in Crl.M.P.No.8523 of 2007 in C.C.No.137 of 2002, dated 19.10.2007, wherein the petition filed by the petitioner to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking the document, to give evidence and also to summon P.Satyanarayna, s/o.Govindaraju, Stamp vendor, Srikakulam and Pudi Bheema Rao, Junior Assistant in District Registrar Office, Srikakulam, was dismissed. Petitioner/complainant filed the above complaint against the accused alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 423 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the petitioner, the accused during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1, put forward a plea that there was an earlier agreement of sale in their favour and, therefore, it necessitated the petitioner to file the petition. Petitioner has no knowledge about the said agreement of sale by the date of filing of the complaint and only at the time of trial, the said agreement was pressed into service. Whereas the plea of accused Nos.2 to 8 is that the complainant has got knowledge of the said agreement even by the date of filing of the complaint, as the civil suit was already pending by then and that no specific charge is framed basing on the agreement of sale and the charge is only with regard to the sale deed executed by A2 to A8 in favour of A9. In the complaint it is alleged that A1, who executed the sale deed on 03.07.1998 in his favour, with a dishonest intention colluded with A2 to A8 and created a nominal sale deed dated 14.10.1999 in favour of A9 and he filed a suit in O.S.No.328 of 1999 against the accused. Admittedly, the complainant has not mentioned about the agreement of sale, dated 08.02.1997 in the complaint. Further in the sale deed dated 03.07.1998, wherein he purchased the property, there is no mention about the earlier agreement of sale, Therefore, recalling the petitioner for the purpose of marking the documents namely the agreement of sale, does not arise. It is now fairly well settled that Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars pleading such agreement of sale contrary to the recitals in the sale deed. In view of the same, the dismissal order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference by this Court. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st July 2010 lmv