THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5123 of 2009 Date: 21.02.2011 Between : Kishore lal Yadav, S/o.Bhayyalal Yadav … Petitioner/Accused 6 And 1. State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor & another. … Respondents/Complainants HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5123 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A6 is accused of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC in Crime No.463 of 2009 of Afzalgunj Police Station, Hyderabad. Subject matter of dispute in this case is house property bearing No.4-2-1034 at Ramkot, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad consisting of Ground+3 floors. A1 to A5 are original owners of the said property. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant agreed to purchase the said property from A1 to A5 for Rs.21,00,000/- and paid part of sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- to them and entered into agreement for sale and that, subsequently, A1 to A5 in collusion with A6, who is a private financier, brought a sale deed, dated 30.01.2009 into existence, with a view to cheat the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant also filed suit for specific performance of his agreement and for cancellation of sale deed, dated 30.01.2009 of A6, in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and obtained interim order of injunction from further alienating the property and from changing the structure of the building. 2. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that A6 is a bonofide purchaser of the sale property for valuable consideration from A1 to A5 and that out of the sale consideration, he paid Rs.12,81,500/- by way of two banker cheques to City Financial Consumer Finance India Limited, with whom A1 to A5 mortgaged the property and that, he paid balance of Rs.11,00,000/- to A1 to A5 by way of two cheques ad obtained possession of the property. It is further contended that the defacto complainant did not mention date of agreement and date of payment of part of sale consideration in the report. He also did not mention even suit number in the report. Those details will be collected from the defacto complainant, during the course of investigation. The questions whether the alleged second sale of the same property in favour of A6 by A1 to A5 was a collusive one and made with a view to cheat the defacto complainant, are questions of fact, which this Court cannot consider and decide in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They are matters to be investigated into and decided by the Investigating Officer, after collecting evidence during investigation. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to stall the investigation at its threshold. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt: 21st February, 2011 ysk HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5123 of 2009 DATED:21.02.2011 ysk