IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2925 OF 2007 Between: J. Lokesh Reddy and others .....PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2925 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C’), is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A3, A5, A6, A7 and A9 in F.I.R.No.74 of 2007 of Shamirpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Heard the learned for the petitioners. None appears for respondent Nos.2 to 6, in spite of giving sufficient opportunities. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Petition may be stated as follows: Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein/complainants filed a private complaint against the petitioners and 09 others, alleging the offences punishable under Sections 447, 467, 471, 506, 120B, 166, 167, 168 read with 149 I.P.C. The allegations levelled by the complainants are that they are purchasers and absolute owners of the different plots of lands each admeasuring 300 square yards in Survey No.811 of Upperpalli Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They claim the title through D. Suryanarayana Raju and D.V.S. Ramachandra Raju (represented by their G.P.A., D. Kishore, S/o. D. Suryanarayana Raju), who were said to have purchased the property admeasuring Ac.25-31 guntas in Survey Nos.809, 810, 811 and 836 of Upperpalli Village from Gurram Krishna Reddy, son of Gurram Sita Ram Reddy, claiming that Gurram Sita Ram Reddy has purchased the properties from original pattedar B. Laxma Reddy. It is case of respondent Nos.2 to 6 that there is a lay out sanction plan and according to the same the entire property has been converted into residential plots and they purchased the same under registered sale deeds. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein also filed civil cases in O.S.No.484 of 2007 and O.S.No.513 of 2007 pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction and the very same advocate has drafted the present complaint as against the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein obtained ex parte interim injunction orders claiming that they are in possession of the property in question and the present petitioners filed vacate injunction petitions and on 24.04.2007, the matters have been heard on merits and reserved for orders. It is not out of place to mention here that, Mr. Bandi Satishwar Reddy, the predecessor in interest of petitioners herein filed a civil suit O.S.No.650 of 2005 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, which was numbered as O.S.No.100 of 2005 before the vacation court for perpetual injunction in respect of the very same property admeasuring Ac.6-00 in Survey No.811 of Upperpalli. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, was pleased to grant temporary injunction on 18.05.2005 in I.A.No.152 of 2005 in O.S.No.100 of 2005 (renumbered as O.S.No.650 of 2005) against D. Kishore and D. Suryanarayana Raju restraining them from interfering in the peaceful physical possession of Sri Bandi Satiswar Reddy and the said orders are subsisting as on today. Therefore, D. Kishore and D. Suryanarayana Raju or any person claiming through them (including the present respondent Nos.2 to 6) are injuncted from interfering with the peaceful physical possession of the petitioners claiming through their predecessors in interest Mr. B. Satiswar Reddy. 4. Learned senior counsel, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the property in question for a valuable consideration and therefore, the question of trespassing does not arise; that there is no allegation that there was a criminal conspiracy between the petitioners and other accused, or that the petitioners used the forged documents as genuine one so as to infer a prima facie case for the offences, for which the petitioners were charged and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings. 5. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice or to give effect to the orders passed under the Code. If the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of the offences alleged, then only the question of quashing the complaint would arise. 6. Though it is stated that the petitioners trespassed, forged and committed criminal conspiracy, as seen from the allegations, there is no specific allegation levelled against the petitioners that they have committed forgery or used forged document as genuine one for the purpose of getting registration. It is rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the property in question for valuable consideration and that the complainants who allegedly purchased the said property form Gurram Sita Ram Reddy has no title and the document has not been forged by the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 also filed civil suits in O.S.Nos.484 and 513 of 2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction and the said suits were dismissed for non-prosecution. Even otherwise, there is no allegation that these petitioners have committed the offences alleged. Hence, there is no prima facie case made out against the present petitioners. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the present petitioners/A3, A5, A6, A7 and A9 in F.I.R.No.74 of 2007 of Shamirpet Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 19, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2925 OF 2007 August 19, 2010