HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6779 OF 2009 DATED.27-12-2011 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/Accused No.3 (For short, ‘A-3’) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.110 of 2009, pending on the file of the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 416 and 468 I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioner is A-3, the respondent No.2 is the de- facto complainant in the Calender Case. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties as arrayed in the Calender Case. 3. The case of the de-facto complainant in brief is as follows : The de-facto complainant is the legal and rightful owner of the plots bearing Nos.365/A part and 356/A part situated in survey Nos.123, 124 and 125 of Ghatkesar village and she is in possession of the same. For seeking necessary permissions for installing a bore in the said plots, she applied for Encumbrance Certificate on 22-01-2008. But after obtaining E.C., she was shocked to notice that her plots were sold by impersonating her and forging her signatures by A-1 to her son A-2 both residents of Bharath Nagar, Uppal and subsequently A-2 sold the plot 365/A to A-3, also resident of Bharath Nagar, under agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. Further, all the persons colluded with each other and cheated the de-facto complainant by doing so. Hence, A-1 to A-3 are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for A-3 that he is a stranger and he got no knowledge about the alleged transactions and he bona-fidely purchased the property from A-2 and therefore he cannot be prosecuted and accordingly the proceedings in the Calender Case, in so far as A-3 is concerned, are liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents-state has opposed the petition. 6. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to quash the proceedings as prayed for? 7. It is pertinent to note here that admittedly A-3 purchased the property from A-2, whereas according to the de-facto complainant, by impersonation and forging her signatures, A-1 sold the same property to her grand son i.e. A-2 who in turn sold the property to A-3. So, unless necessary trial of the case is conducted the complicity of A-3 in the case cannot be decided. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the presence of A-3 before the trial Court is dispensed with till the commencement of the trial, unless his presence is required in the case otherwise. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated:27-12-2011. Dsh. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6779 OF 2009 December, 27, 2011 DSH