HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 6671 of 2009 DATED: 03.12.2011 Between: V. Satyanarayana Raju .. Petitioner/ A1 And 1. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor 2. G. Ramakrishna .. Respondents O R D E R:- 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Crime No. 214 of 2009 on the file of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC on the ground that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is A1 and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the crime. For convenience, I refer them as arrayed in the calendar case. 3. The main claim of the de facto complainant is that A1 sold the property to him for valid sale consideration without marketable title and when he questioned about it and asked A1 to repay the sale consideration amount, A1 failed to do so and on the other hand, A1 got issued a legal notice dated 24.03.2009 with false and baseless allegations and when he finally approached A1 in that context A1 along with the other accused in the case intimidated him. 4. The claim of A1 is as follows: A1 purchased Plot No. 173 admeasuring 200 square yards in Sy.No.146/B of Bachupally village, Pragatinagar, Qutubullapur Municipality, Ranga Reddy District from its real owner – G. Rajasekhar for a valid consideration of Rs.55,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 17.12.2003. In fact, then A1 verified the earlier link documents executed by P. Vijayadarshan in favour of his vendor viz. G.Rajasekhar, and another document executed by S.V.S.N. Varma and D. Suresh Kumar in favour of P. Vijayadarshan who is the vendor of A1’s vendor which are evident from its Encumbrance Certificate dated 08.02.2009. This property was in turn purchased by the de facto complainant from A1 under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2005 for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- and immediately the vacant possession of the land was delivered to him. Having purchased the property, the de facto complainant, with an evil intention to extract money from A1, demanded A1 to refund the sale consideration on the alleged ground that A1 got no marketable title and that the property was purchased for a consideration of Rs.5,20,000/- even though the sale consideration mentioned under the sale deed is only Rs.1,20,000/-. Thereafter, i.e. on 21.03.2009, the de facto complainant along with his henchmen and some unsocial elements who are said to be C.B.I. personnel approached A1 and threatened him to refund Rs.5.20 lakhs and forcibly obtained a letter anti-dating the same as 02.11.2008 to give effect that A1 accepted to refund an amount of Rs.3.50 lakhs and also agreed to arrange payment of Rs.1.70 lakhs through his Vendor. As the de facto complainant and his henchmen threatened A1 with dire consequences and due to threat to his life, A1 was compelled to write the said alleged letter as dictated by the de facto complainant and his henchmen and handed over the same to the de facto complainant. A1 got issued a legal notice dated 24.03.2009 through his Advocate, for which the complainant got issued a reply notice dated 1.4.2009. Taking advantage of the alleged undertaking letter said to have been executed by A1 dated 02.11.2008 which was forcibly obtained from A1 on 21.03.2009 under threat to his life, the de facto complainant filed false complaint. In fact, it cannot be said that A1 got no marketable title over the property as on the date of execution of the document. The claim of the de facto complainant is purely of civil nature and does not constitute any offence as alleged in the complaint. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings in the said crime. 6. It is the main contention of learned counsel for A1 that the said action was taken five years after the registration of the document and also immediately after issuing the notice to the de facto complainant claiming that by force the de facto complainant obtained his signatures and thereby as a counter-blast only the complaint was filed and hence continuation of the proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law and accordingly this petition has to be quashed. 7. It is pertinent to note that there are clear allegations of selling the property without marketable title and it is also pertinent to note that the investigation of the case is pending. The Investigating Officer concerned has to examine as to whether A1 sold the property without any marketable title and also with a dishonest intention of cheating the defacto complainant and unless such a finding is arrived at no cognizance of the case should be taken by the learned Magistrate. The investigating officer must collect necessary material and ascertain whether A1 got marketable title over the property and whether A1 cheated the de facto complainant . In such criminal cases also the question of such title is to be determined. It cannot be said that only in civil cases the question of title of a property is to be decided. The Magistrate has to use the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. about re- investigation whenever it is necessary. At this stage, it is not advisable to dispose of the matter on the ground that sufficient material is not there. 8. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 03.12.2011 bcj