HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1987, 2830 AND 2834 OF 2009 DATE: 23-12-2011 BETWEEN: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1987 OF 2009 M. Narsaiah and eleven others. - - - Petitioners/ A-22, 25 to 27 & 29 to 36. AND The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. - - - Respondents/ Complainants. CRIMINAL PETITION No.2830 OF 2009 Mir Zulfear Ali and nineteen others. - - - Petitioners/ A-1, 4 to 21 & 39. AND Potula Narasimha and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Complainants. CRIMINAL PETITION No.2834 OF 2009 Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Having its registered office at Leela Kempinski, Sahar, Mumbai and another. - - - Petitioners/ A-37 & 38. AND Potula Narasimha and The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Complainants. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1987, 2830 AND 2834 OF 2009 DATE:23-12-2011 COMMON ORDER: The Criminal Petition No.1987 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.22, 25 to 27 and 29 to 36, Criminal Petition No.2830 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1, 4 to 21 and 39 and the Criminal Petition No.2834 of 2009 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.37 and 38 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Calender Case No.1712 of 2008 pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered for offences punishable under sections 342, 365, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. Whereas the petitioners are A-1, A-4 to 22, 25 to 27 and 29 to 39, the respondent No.2 in Crl.P. No.1987 of 2009 i.e. the respondent No.1 in the Crl.P. Nos.2830 and 2834 of 2009 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. Originally a complaint was filed in the case before the learned Magistrate. It was forwarded under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to the Banjara Hills police station for necessary investigation and report. Consequently, it was registered in Crime No.1027 of 2007 on the file of that police station for the said offences. After observing necessary formalities, charge sheet was filed in the case and it was registered as the Calender Case No.1712 of 2008 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The version of the prosecution is as follows : The father of the de- facto complainant namely Sri P. Rajaiah (late) was the owner of land admeasuring Ac.3-07 guntas in survey No.129 (old) i.e. Survey No.403 (new) situated at Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. After his death, the property devolved upon the de-facto complainant, his sons and daughters. A-1 in the case was introduced to the de-facto complainant and his family members through P. Kistaiah, K. Narayana Raju and Someshwara Rao. Subsequently, all the accused in the case hatched up a conspiracy to purchase the property form the de-facto complainant and illegally grab the property. Subsequently, all the accused wrongfully confined the de-facto complainant at different places and under threat of death and dire consequences the de-facto complainant and his family members were made to execute certain documents. Further, on 08-08- 2008, the de-facto complainant and his family members came to know about the creation of document No.4524 of 2005 by the accused having been conspired together to grab the property. After going through the document, the de-facto complainant realized that the document was obtained in respect of the said property for a total consideration of Rs.21 crores. Further, not a single pie was paid to him in respect of the transactions in fact. Further, they never executed any G.P.A. in favour of any of the accused. It is further claimed that Smt. D. Pochamma was shown as a signatory to the document but her photo was not affixed therein and in fact she was expired on 07-02-2005, whereas the date of registration of the document was shown to be 14-12-2005 which sufficiently prove the fraud played by all the accused. Further, the Joint Sub-Registrar concerned also involved in the fraud. Hence, A-1 to A-39 in the case are liable to be punished for the alleged offences. 4. It is contended on behalf of A-22, A-25 to A-27 and A-29 to A-36 in the Criminal Petition No.1987 of 2009 that the allegations made in the complaint are nothing but false and the same property was claimed by 70 persons including the de-facto complainant, his family members, A-1 to A-36 and several others and out of them 52 persons including the de-facto complainant, his family members and A-1 to A-36 executed the Agreement of Sale-cum-G.P.A. bearing registered document No.4524 of 2005, dated 14-12-2005 in question in favour of A-37 in the case and the remaining 18 persons also executed a separate Agreement of Sale-cum- G.P.A. in respect of the same land in favour of A-37 itself and in fact all of them went to the Sub-Registrar’s office and got the two documents registered in favour of A-37, represented by its Vice-Chairman and M.D. i.e. A-38, whereas A-39 and further except the de-facto complainant and her daughter by name B. Varalakshmi, no other person lodged any report in any Court before anybody in the matter. Further, one Smt. Yaseen Begum filed a Suit i.e. O.S. No.151 of 2006 on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against 73 persons including the de-facto complainant, his family members, all the accused in the present case and several others for declaration of title and recovery of the possession of the property in which the de-facto complaint was arrayed as the defendant No.22 and his family members were arrayed as the defendants Nos.21 and 23 to 35 and in that suit the de-facto complainant and his family members remained ex-parte and further Civil Appeal Nos.5897 and 5898 of 2004 filed consequently are pending before the Apex Court in respect of the property. Further, one Anusuya and Prakash also filed Civil Suits in respect of a part of that property before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Further, in fact the daughter of the de-facto complainant namely B. Varalakshmi lodged a report in the Banjara Hills police station making the same allegations on 19-10-2007 against all the accused which was got registered as Crime No.1027 of 2007 under Section 342, 384, 465, 468 and 506 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the accused. Further, the transaction is a bona fide transaction. Further the de-facto complainant’s report was filed after two years of the execution of the sale deed. Further, copies of the documents in question are filed before the Court, which show that several persons executed the documents, whereas the de-facto complainant and his family members executed one of the documents in favour of A-37 in the case and they were registered. Further, therefore it is clear that the complainant deliberately lodged false private complainant and the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad without applying his mind to the contents of the matter and just on the basis of the alleged created document bluntly took the case on file and issued summons to all the accused. Further, there is no prima-facie case against all the accused and hence the entire proceedings in the Calender Case are liable to be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the accused who filed the petitions contends that the de-facto complainant claims as if that the accused obtained the document from him and his family members only and pertinently the document executed by them and so also the other documents were executed and registered at the Sub-Registrar’s office concerned and after three years of the execution the de-facto complainant filed the complainant and if his claim is true he would have taken necessary action at the time of inception only and he gave false complaint before the Court. Further Prima-facie it is very difficult to say or accept that ignorantly they went to the Sub-Registrar’s office and executed the registered deed and he could not know for two or three years about what exactly transferred. It is not stated how exactly the accused cheated them. Emphatically though almost all the other accused also executed registered document or documents in faovur of A-37 they are not making similar allegations and on the other hand, they too are claiming that the transactions are genuine which is very important. 6. There is no dispute that the de-facto complainant and his family members executed the document in question, which was also registered by them. If they were wrongfully confined and intimidated and cheated to do so, they would have approached the police for necessary action immediately, which is not the case here. Pertinently several persons appear to have executed the other document or documents in favour of A-37 at the same time when the de-facto complainant and his family members approached the Sub-Registrar he could have clarified all his doubts in the matter, if any, at the same time. It is not his specific claim that he and his family members were taken to the Sub-Registrar’s office by subjecting them to violence and under threats they executed and registered the document. Further as per the document, the sale consideration was paid. The matter appears to be purely civil in nature. To prosecute the accused in the case is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the petitions are tenable. In the result, all the three criminal petitions are allowed quashing the entire proceedings in Calender Case No.1712 of 2008 pending on the file of the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in so far as A-1, 4 to 22, 25 to 27 and 29 to 36 and 37 to 39. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 23-12-2011. Dsh/Da. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1987, 2830 AND 2834 OF 2009 December, 23, 2011 DSH/DA