HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition Nos.5779 and 5619 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.5779 of 2010 is filed by petitioner-A.1 and Crl.P.No.5619 of 2010 is filed by A.4, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash further proceedings against them in FIR No.177 of 2010 of Madhapur PS. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, police registered a case in Cr.No.177 of 2010 against the petitioners-A.1 & A.4 and others, for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC and took up investigation. According to the complainant, he agreed to purchase 1180 sq. yards in Sy.Nos.32 to 35 of Kondapur, Hyderabad from A.1 for a consideration of Rs.9,44,000/- through mediators i.e., Surapaneni Vijayakumar, Chitturi Sivaprasad @ Sivaji and Ramakrishna and that he paid advance of Rs.6,77,600/- by cheque bearing No.233434 and Rs.2,66,400/- by way of another cheque bearing No.233435 of State Bank of India, Barkatpura branch, Hyderabad, drawn in favour of A.1 and that on 18.01.2003, A.1 executed a registered sale deed and delivered possession of the site to the complainant. It is further alleged that at the time of registration, A.1 stated that prior title deed was not readily available and that he would deliver the same on a later date and specifically assured that the land was not hypothecated any were and there was no encumbrances. Subsequently, when the complainant made enquiry, he came to know that A.1 has already pledged the title deed with State Bank of India, Secunderabad branch and obtained loan and subsequently discharged the debt and took away the title deed from the bank. A.1 also encashed the cheques issued by the complainant. The complainant further alleges that when he intended to dispose of the site, the intending purchaser, through his counsel, made a publication in Eenadu daily on 18.02.2007 calling for objections, if any, against the proposed purchase by him. In response thereto, A.1 got issued a notice dated 23.02.2007 through his Advocate, stating that he is the absolute owner of the site and is in possession thereof. In response to it, the complainant gave reply notice on 08.03.07 asserting his title. The complainant however could not dispose of the site because of the notice issued by A.1. It is further alleged that few days prior to filing of the complaint, on manual verification in the Sub Registrar’s office, it was found that the same site was sold by one Ravindra in favour of K.Nageswara Rao by registered sale deed dated 22.11.2006 under GPA cum agreement of sale. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that A.1 after getting the title deed released from the bank has taken undue advantage of the fact that in the said title deed his name was noted as ‘P.Ravindra’ instead of ‘Ravindranadh’ and brought into existence subsequent sale deed dated 22.11.2006 fraudulently as if it was executed by Ravindra in favour of Nageswara Rao on 22.11.2006 in respect of the same site, which he has already sold in favour of the complainant in the name of ‘Ravindranadh’ on 18.01.2003. It is specifically alleged that A.1 with a view to defeat the earlier sale in favour of the complainant has resorted to impersonation and brought into existence the subsequent GPA cum agreement of sale dated 22.11.2005 in a different name and played fraud not only on the complainant but also on the Registration Department and cheated the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-A.1 & A.4 would contend that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the criminal prosecution is not warranted. It is not a case of mere execution of two different documents by A.1 in respect of the same site in favour of two purchasers. It is a case where specific allegations have been made to the effect that having sold the site to the complainant in the year 2003 suppressing the factum of the pledge of title deed with the bank and having taken the title deed back from the bank, A.1 without delivering the same to the complainant as promised, resorted to execution of another document i.e., GPA cum agreement of sale dated 22.11.2006 by impersonation taking advantage of the fact that in the original title deed his name was mentioned as only ‘Ravindra’ but not ‘Ravindranadh’ and thereby trying to project as if two are different persons, though in fact both the names related to one and the same person i.e., A.1. Having regard to such allegations made in the complaint, which in fact, required thorough investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise thereof, the matter cannot simply be termed as a civil dispute. It is a typical case where a dispute, though appears to be civil in nature, is in fact, one having all criminal trappings, prima-facie attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences. The matter therefore requires thorough investigation and hence further proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold stage and thereby thwart the investigation by invoking the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Insofar as A.4 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner-A.4 would contend that even according to the complaint, no specific allegations are made against A.4, except that he demanded the complainant to pay the amounts. A.4 is stated to be the brother of A.1. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that A.1, in collusion with A.4, have resorted to the offences and both of them have been demanding the complainant to pay heavy amounts since two months prior to filing of the complaint. Having regard to the alleged involvement of A.4 also and his alleged participation in the commission of the offences, it is held that investigation shall go on as against A.4 as well. 6. In the circumstances, there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to quash further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 & A.4 in FIR No.177 of 2010 of Madhapur PS. 7. In the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 10.11.2011 bss