THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.145 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1040 of 2007 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, whereunder and whereby, the petitioners were shown as A.2 and A.3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are that A.2, who is the daughter-in-law of A.1, in collusion with her father-in-law, A.1, brought into existence the registered gift settlement deed, dated 20.01.2004 and A.3, who is the son of A.1, signed as witness in the gift deed and thereafter, A.2 by misrepresenting the facts before the revenue authorities, obtained passbooks and title deeds on her name and that all the accused collusively created gift settlement deed only with an intention to cheat the complainant. Basing on the complaint given by the first respondent, the case was registered, investigated into and charge sheet was filed. The same was taken on file as C.C.No.1040 of 2007. To quash the proceedings in the said case, the present petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that at the time of sale of property by A.1, A.2 and A.3 were not married and A.3 was minor and that they were not aware of the transaction, if any allegedly entered by A.1 with some third parties including the de facto complainant and that there is no element of cheating and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. There cannot be any dispute that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. This being the extraordinary remedy, it has to be exercised with great care and caution and with circumspection. It is well settled that if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case for the offence alleged against the accused, then only the question of quashing the complaint arises. It is not necessary to delve deep into the allegations whether they are correct or not. If the allegations make out a prima facie case, then it is the statutory duty of the authority concerned to proceed further. The allegation is that A.1 already sold the property to some third parties and again in collusion with A.2 and A.3, brought into existence the gift deed and in pursuance of the said gift deed, A.3 obtained necessary revenue records from the revenue department concerned. Explanation to Section 415 IPC reads that a dishonest concealment of fact is a deception within the meaning of this Section. In the instant case, suppression of material fact is that having already sold the property, A.1 executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter-in-law, A.2, and if A.2 and A.3 accepted the gift deed knowing fully well that A.1 has no right or title in respect of the said property, then it can be said that A.1 to A.3 collusively brought into existence the gift deed. Whether there is any collusion between A.2 and A.3 or not is a question of fact, which is to be decided after full- fledged trial. The allegations in the charge sheet coupled with the statements would clearly go to show that A.2 knowingly colluded with A.1, got gifted the land in her favour and that A.3 knowing about the title of his father, signed on the gift deed as a witness and thereby colluded with A.1 and A.2. Hence, I am of the view that the allegations mentioned in the complaint make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. Thus, quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.1040 of 2007 against them does not arise. The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed. Any observations made in this order will be only for the purpose of disposal of this petition. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J 22nd DECEMBER, 2009. kvni