HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.6605 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Both the petitioners herein are accused in C.C.No.82 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhongir (Trial Court). They filed this Criminal Petition for quashing the aforesaid criminal case. The offence alleged against them is the one punishable under Section 420 IPC. The substance of the case against the petitioners-accused is that the complainant-party purchased the share of one Kundan Singh in the lands originally belonging to Kundan Singh, Heera Singh and Chandar Singh and that the second petitioner also attested the sale deed to guarantee the title and the boundaries. The further grievance of the complainant-party is that the second petitioner i.e. T.Man Mohan Singh subsequently executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) some time in 2005 (date not mentioned) authorizing the first petitioner not only to sell his land but also the lands purchased by them and, consequently, the first petitioner, along with the other lands, sold away their lands also. The concerned police investigated into the matter and, ultimately, laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The allegations in the charge sheet also show that both the petitioners have even created false documents to show that they sold away the property belonging to the complainant-party though it does not belong to them. However whether this plea of the petitioner is true or not is a question to be decided by the Trial Court. The contention of Sri Pandu Ranga Reddy is that though the purchase of lands by the complainant-party is not disputed, there is a boundary dispute, that the land for which GPA has been executed by Sri T.Man Mohan Singh (second petitioner) in favour o f Smt Puspa Bai (first petitioner) is a different land altogether and, therefore, the question of any criminal offence does not arise. Learned Counsel further contended that the complainant-party has also filed O.S.No.400 of 2007 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir for perpetual injunction and, having failed to obtain temporary injunction against the petitioners, they resorted to this criminal case. This aspect may have an affect on the merits of the matter which has to be again decided by the Trial Court. The allegations in the charge sheet do disclose the offence and many contentions raised by Sri Pandu Ranga Reddy, learned Counsel, relate to the merits of the matter i.e. in defence of the petitioners. Whether the petitioners are guilty or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this Criminal Petition. It is also stated that the documents in question were executed by the petitioners way back in the year 2005 and complaint was given in the year 2007. It may be noted that there is no limitation for the offences alleged and, at best, the delay in giving the complaint may affect the merits of the matter but is not a ground for this Court to interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, the relief for quashing the Criminal Case is rejected. It is brought to my notice that the first petitioner is a lady aged about 60 years and she cannot attend on every date of hearing before the Trial Court. Having regard to the said plea, the presence of the first petitioner before the Trial Court for every date of hearing is dispensed with subject, of course, to the discretion of the Trial Court to order her presence as and when it considers it necessary. It goes without saying that it shall be open to the petitioners to make an application for discharge also before the Trial Court. It is made clear that the Trial Court shall dispose of the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. N.RAVI SHANKAR,J Date:08.12.2011 usd