HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.5307 of 2008 Date: November 30, 2011 Between: Badiga Potharaju (A-1) S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 76 years, R / o . 1 0 - 1 - 5 6 0 , West Marredpally, Secunderabad … Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High C o u r t , Hyderabad and another … Respondents Order: This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed by A.1 in C.C.No.No.315 of 2008 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 423, 468, 471 and 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. One late Sri S. Rajaiah was the owner and possessor of the land covered by Sy.No.73, admeasuring Ac.1.24 guntas, situated at Shameerpet village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 2nd respondent herein claims that he is the only son of the said Rajaiah and succeeded to the aforesaid property. He filed a private complaint before the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, stating that, in order to obtain loan from the bank by mortgaging the said property, he applied for Encumbrance Certificate on 14.08.2007 and to his surprise, different sale entries are noticed with regard to different sale transactions with regard to the said property, executed in favour of the petitioner-A.1, by one Mr. Ramulu, who in turn sold the same in favour of A.2; thereafter A.2 executed sale deed in favour of A.3, by document No.375 of 2006 and A.4 and A.5 are the attesting witnesses to the said sale deed. It is alleged in the complaint that A.5 and A.6 are residents of Shameerpet and well-known land-grabbers. They are in the habit of searching the landowners who expired, by collecting data from the MRO office and by impersonation; they got sale deeds executed with regard to the land owned by him. It is alleged that there is conspiracy in creating such impersonated forged sale deeds, which were executed with a mala fide intention and the same is done to create wrongful loss to him; thereby the accused are liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 read with 34 IPC. The said private complaint was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Final report is filed stating that the complainant is the only person who is the successor of late Sri Rajaiah and owner of the property in question and no other person has inherited interest from the said Rajaiah. Final report also states that though the petitioner-A.1 claims that he has purchased the said property from one Sri Sikindlapuram Ramulu, but there is no such person and the petitioner-A.1 and other accused have created one such person for the purpose of getting sale deed registered. It is contended by Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser from the earlier owner and possessor of the property in question, i.e. Sri Sikindlapuram Ramulu. It is stated that, when, subsequently, sale deed was executed with regard to the said property by the 2nd respondent and when the same was entered in the revenue records, the petitioner approached the RDO, who has passed order dated 24.02.2005 setting aside the mutation proceedings issued in favour of third parties basing on the sale deed executed by the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that, against the said order of the RDO, the 2nd respondent approached the Joint Collector, who, without notice, passed an ex parte order setting aside the order of the RDO, which, in turn, is questioned before this Court in a writ petition, in which interim orders of status quo are passed. Precisely, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the dispute in question is essentially of a civil nature and the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser, no case is made out against him to proceed for the offences as alleged. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused a copy of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, dated 24.02.2005, on a petition made by the petitioner, by which the mutation proceedings issued in favour of the third parties is set-aside. In this case, it is to be noticed that it is the case of the 2nd respondent that he is the only son of late Sri S. Rajaiah, as such, he succeeded to the property in question as no other person had any interest or title with regard to the said property. It is his case that there is no person by name Sikandlapuram Ramulu and the said person is created by all the accused for the purpose of getting sale deed executed by impersonation and the same is a matter for investigation. It is the specific case of the 2nd respondent that there is conspiracy on the part of the accused to transfer the property in question to the petitioner by fabricated sale deeds. There was no occasion in the civil proceedings to examine whether any such person, by name Sikandlapuram Ramulu, who is alleged to have executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner, exists or not. Further, the RDO, who is the authority under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, has proceeded based on the certification made by the Panchayat Secretary, Shameerpet, stating that the vendor of the petitioner herein, i.e. Sikandlapuram Ramulu, is the only son and successor of S. Rajaiah. There is no such power conferred under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for issuance of such certificate and the same cannot be taken as a legal document for the purpose of determining succession. It can be used as a piece of evidence in support of the case of the petitioner, but, that, by itself, cannot be made basis to accept that the vendor of the petitioner is the only son of Sri S. Rajaiah. When final report is filed stating that except the 2nd respondent there is no other person who has derived interest on the property left by Sri S. Rajaiah, it is a matter for trial so as to know whether the petitioner herein is a member of such conspiracy as alleged by the 2nd respondent. May be that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, but, in view of the specific plea that there is no such person by name Sikandlapuram Ramulu and when it is alleged that the alleged sale deeds which are brought into existence are forged and fabricated, this Court cannot go into the said aspect, so as to quash the proceedings at this stage, in this petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 30, 2011 MRR