HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4314 of 2009 O R D E R: Petitioners 1 and 2/A1 and A2 filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint in CFR No. 5808 of 2009 on the file of VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur, relating to offences punishable under Sections 406, 415 and 420 IPC. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that CFR No.5808 of 2009 of the lower court was registered as crime No.84 of 2009 of Prathipadu Police Station, Guntur District, on a reference made by the Magistrate for investigation and report. 2. It is alleged by the 1st respondent/complainant in CFR No.5808 of 2008 that the accused entered into a Contract for Sale on 18.12.2006 to sell her property to the complainant and received Rs.2,00,000/- and agreed to execute registered sale deed for the said property after receiving balance sale consideration with interest at 24% p.a. It is further alleged that subsequently, the complainant came to know that the same property was intended to be taken by the Government for Indiramma Programme under SWLA scheme and Land Acquisition Proceedings were taken and a publication was made in Extraordinary Gazette of the District on 24-10- 2006 and that the 1st respondent came to know that a willing application was given by the accused for Land Acquisition Proceedings. Thus, the 1st respondent lodged private complaint in the lower court alleging that the accused made the 1st respondent to enter into the sale agreement by suppressing Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of the self same property and made the 1st respondent to part with huge sum of money towards advance amount. 3. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that document No.1 attached to the private complaint is Photostat copy of the agreement dated 18-12-2006 said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the complainant ; but the Photostat copy of the agreement filed along with the complaint reads that the said agreement is in favour of a third party and not in favour of the 1st respondent-complainant. The petitioners did not file any certified copies of the private complaint muchless of the agreement dated 18-12-2006, but only unauthenticated private photostat copies are filed herewith. Those copies do not even contain seals of the lower court to show that they are the documents filed in the lower court. There is no answer for the allegation that suppressing the Land Acquisition Proceedings in respect of the same property, the petitioners/accused entered into agreement for sale for the same property in favour of the 1st respondent-complainant ; and it is a matter for investigation. If really the agreement for sale was not in favour of the 1st respondent-complainant, then the police may take any action on the subject. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to stall the investigation of the crime, which was registered on a reference made by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners 1 and 2 are at liberty to surrender before the lower court within three weeks from today, in which event they shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds for Rs.5,000/- each together with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the same court. ____________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt: 03-11-2010 Mjl/*