THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6041 OF 2009 DT.10.3.2011 Between: V Ravi Raju … Petitioner And B.Srinivasa Rao and another … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K Venu Madhav Counsel for respondent No.1: None Counsel for respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following ORDER: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6041 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner / A2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 307, 325, 342, 506 /34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Crime No. 471 of 2009 of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad. No doubt, basis of transaction between the first respondent/ defacto complainant and the petitioner/ A2 is an agreement for sale of 302 sq.yards out of 5716 sq. yards of site in Mettuguda, Secunderabad, in respect of which A2 is stated to have received Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) out of the agreed sale consideration of Rs.27,18,000/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs eighteen thousand only) from the first respondent and passed cash receipt in favour of the first respondent. A1 and A3 who are not the petitioners herein are the attesters in that receipt. Apart from other allegations, the main allegation against A2 is that he entered into agreements with several persons relating to the same property and that there was exchange of notices between the parties with regard to the said property. It is further alleged that on 22.1.2009 at about 7.30 A.M. the complainant met A1 and A3, they abused him in the name of ‘Mala’ caste and that A1 and A3 man-handled him and forcibly snatched the receipt for Rs.9,00,000/- from the complainant. No doubt, there are no allegations of A2 abusing the first respondent in the name of ‘Mala’ caste. But, having regard to the allegation that A2 entered into agreements with several persons for sale of the same land and man-handled the first respondent along with the other accused, prima facie, discloses ingredients for the offences for which the crime was registered. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to quash F.I.R in this case insofar as the petitioner/ A2 is concerned. In the result the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date: 10.3.2011 Tvk HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6041 OF 2009 Date: 10.3.2011