HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.198 of 2007 DATED 02.02.2010 Between: Ramesh Sanghivi … Petitioner And Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station and another … Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.198 of 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed by the 1st accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing F.I.R in Crime No.501/2006 of Madapur Police Station relating to offence punishable under Sections 447, 468, 471, 420/34 I.P.C. 2) The 2nd respondent is defacto-complainant who gave report to the police against A-1 and his associates. The 2nd respondent claims to be owner of the disputed site of 668.21 sq.yards in S.No.34 of Guttala Begumpet village shown as plot Nos.17 and part of 16. She alleges that she purchased the said land under two registered documents dated 19.12.2003 and 31.03.2006. It is alleged that A-1 and his associates were trying to trespass into her property with forged link documents and are trying to establish their ownership. 3) On the other hand, it is contention of the petitioner/A-1 that M/s.Sanghvi Cylinders (P) Limited, represented by its Managing Partner/A-1 purchased house premisis bearing No.1-65/14/6/24 consisting of watchman room and compound wall in plot No.17 measuring about 643 Sq. yards of site in that village under registered agreement for sale-cum-G.P.A dated 09.05.2005 from its true owners T.Seshagiri Rao, K.Mohana Rao and T.Prabhakara Rao and have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying house tax to Serilingampalli Municipality. The petitioner/A-1 representing M/s.Sanghvi Cylinders (P) Limited filed O.S. No.4081/2006 in Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Hyderabad against the 2nd respondent for permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by the company. On 18.12.2006 the said civil Court in I.A. No.6532/2006 in O.S. No.4081/2006 granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff-company represented by A- 1. It is stated to be pending. It is represented that the 2nd respondent also filed another suit in O.S. No.952/2006 against the petitioner’s company on the file of II Additional District Court, Rangareddy District and that no interim order was yet passed therein as A-1 filed caveat petition before that Court. As per remand report of A-3, with a view to grab the disputed land A-1 to A-6 created fake link documents and A-2 to A-6 and A-1 connived with each other resulting in sale of the said plot to A-1 by A-2 to A-6 and based on fake documents A-1 who has no right or title for the disputed property was trying to criminally trespass into the land. Neither in this petition nor in plaint in O.S. No.4081 of 2006, the petitioner disclosed as to what are link documents for the disputed land in favour of A-2 to A-6. In the remand report, it is stated that all the accused collusively created fake document by manipulating memorandum of settlement between K.Mahita Reddy and 49 others including A-3 to A-5, and A-6 as G.P.A of them sold plot Nos.17 and 16(part) to A-2 and created link document. There is no material on record at this stage giving details of dates of the above link documents and whether they were registered documents or not. 4) Placing reliance on Mohammed Ibrahim V. State of Bihar[1] it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that this Court has to quash criminal proceedings filed in a subject matter, which is of civil nature and to prevent abuse of process. In that decision, it was also held that there cannot be offence of cheating against a person, who is not a party to the document and that it is only parties to the document who can lay a complaint against other parties alleging offence of cheating. In Devendra V State of Uttar Pradesh[2] it was held by the Supreme Court that jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be justifiably exercised when no offence is made out from allegations in F.I.R and when the dispute is purely of civil nature. 5) In the case on hand, A-1 is not a party to the alleged link documents in favour of A-2 to A-6. According to the prosecution, A-1 to A-6 collusively brought link documents into existence with a view to create title in A-1 for the disputed property. No details of link documents are disclosed by the petitioner in this petition as well as in his plaint before the civil Court. It is not known whether they are of recent origin and whether they are registered documents. Having regard to specific allegation of collusion of A-1 with A-2 to A-6 in bringing out fake link documents, complicity of A-1 in the transaction cannot be ruled out at this stage. It is for the police to make investigation into the matter having regard to all circumstances of the case and to come to one conclusion or the other. Though dispute regarding title of landed property may be a civil dispute, when it is alleged that there was forgery and fabrication of link documents, then the dispute attracts criminal process also. Therefore, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash F.I.R in this case at this stage. 6) In the result, the petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J February 02, 2010 KSH [1] (2009)8 Supreme Court Cases 751 [2] (2009)7 Supreme Court Cases 495