THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 145 of 2010 Date: 03.02.2010 Between: M/s. Varuna Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Officer and Authorized Signatory K.V. Prasad. .. Petitioner/Complainant And State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 145 of 2010 Order: This revision is directed against the docket order dated 06.01.2010 passed in C.C. (SR) No.116 of 2010 by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Nampally, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein was returned on the point of jurisdiction. The petitioner/complainant is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No.1028, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and carrying on the business of Poultry and its allied activities. The complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 11458.22 sq. yards equivalent to Ac.2-15 guntas, situated in part of Survey Nos.2, 4, 11 and 12 of Kothaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased from various persons. Out of the above extent of land, the complainant purchased an extent of 1370 sq. yards of land equivalent to Ac.0-11.33 gts., through registered sale deed No.8524 of 2004, dated 11.08.2004 for consideration of Rs.34,28,000/- under concurrence of the Records of Rights proceedings No.B/589/2002, dated 12.09.2003. It is alleged that when A1, A2 and A5 along with others started interfering with their possession, the complainant filed O.S. No.2499 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and obtained ad interim injunction order on 15.12.2008 in I.A. No.3488 of 2008. The complainant also filed a petition for police protection in I.A. No.3628 of 2008 in O.S. No.2499 of 2008 and the orders passed on 16.02.2009 in I.A. No.3628 of 2008 are still in force. Accused No.5 had made to get executed the concocted document No.7115 of 2008 in favour of A1 and A2, who in turn executed the sale deed, vide document No.1910 of 2009, dated 06.04.2009 in favour of A4, who in turn, executed another registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, vide document No.3063 of 2009 dated 04.07.2009 in favour of A3. The document executed by A5 in favour of A1 and A2, vide document No.7115 of 2008, dated 06.09.2008, infers that there is cash transaction of Rs.50.00 lakhs and another amount of Rs.52,48,000/- is yet to be paid. All the transactions are sham and with dishonest intention. Prior to the execution of document No.7115 of 2008 by A5 in favour of A1 and A2 he has transferred the said property in various extents by various sale deeds vide document Nos.1074/1990, dated 24.01.1990, 1220/1992, dated 31.01.1992, 158/2001, dated 10.01.2001, 2802/2001, dated 18.04.2001 and 11058/1991, dated 05.12.1991 and that in link of the same, the complainant has purchased all the extents along with the family settlements after the ROR proceedings No.B/589/2002, dated 12.09.2003. The complainant has also filed O.S. No.765 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, R.R. District, for cancellation of all such fraudulent documents. The transactions run into crores of rupees and are only made in cash and depicts itself that the documents are dishonestly and fraudulently executed with an intention to cheat the complainant and innocent public. The complaint was lodged with the SHO, CCS, Hyderabad. The complainant requested to refer the matter to the Station House Officer, City Crime Station, CCS, Hyderabad for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order, which is as follows. “Entire cause of action arose on the basis of properties situated at Serilingampally, Serilingampally will come under the jurisdiction lies of Ranga Reddy CCS pertaining to twin cities only. Hence, returned.” Challenging the said order, this revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the property is situated at Serilingampally and registered sale deeds were executed at Serilingampally, the transactions took place at the residence of A1, and therefore, the CCS Police, Hyderabad, have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is nothing on record to show that the transactions took place at the residence of A1. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order requires any interference? Admittedly, the disputed lands are situated at Kothaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. Various suits referred by the complainant in its complaint show that all the civil suits were filed in various courts of Ranga Reddy District. O.S. No.2499 of 2008 was filed on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and O.S. No.765 of 2009 was filed on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Thus, it is clear that for the purpose of civil jurisdiction, the complainant had chosen the Ranga Reddy Courts. When a question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any material to show that the documents were hatched at the residence of A1 along with A2 to A5, he having referred to several documents, could not show a single sentence in support of his contention that the documents were executed at the house of A1. Admittedly, all the registered sale deeds were executed in Ranga Reddy District and the complainant himself had chosen Ranga Reddy District for the purpose of civil cases. In view of the same, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the lower Court. There are no merits in the revision case and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 03.02.2010 Nsr