THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5862 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.19 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 511 r/w 34 IPC. 2. The brief averments of the complaint against A1 to A4 and the petitioners/A5 to A12 in the said C.C., are as follows: A1 to A4, entered into an agreement with the complainant for sale of the land. As per the agreement-cum-receipt, A1 to A4 accepted to sell the land for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- and received Rs.1,00,000/- as advance for which two persons stood as witnesses. Pending the said agreement, A1 to A4 sold the property to other third party, for which the petitioners/A5 to A12 stood as witnesses. Hence, the offence under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners stood only as witnesses to the transaction and they claim right over the property, which was sold by A1 to A4 to third party. Admittedly, the petitioners issued notice to the present complainant stating that any sale between the complainant and A1 to A4 will not bind on them, since they also have right over the property. After issuance of the said notice, A1 to A4 entered into an agreement with another person in which the petitioners signed as witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that after issuance of the notice claiming right over the property and also knowing that there is an agreement for sale between the de facto complainant and A1 to A4, the act of the petitioners in signing as witnesses to the agreement of sale made by A1 to A4 to other third party, amounts to an offence under Section 420 IPC. 6. Perused the records and heard the arguments. 7. This court is of the view that the dispute between A1 to A4 and the present petitioners is regarding right over the property. Admittedly, an agreement for sale was entered between the de facto complainant and accused 1 to 4. The present petitioners are the persons they also claim right over the property and accordingly issued notice not only to accused Nos.1 to 4 but also to the de facto complainant. Subsequent to the said notice, petitioners signed as witnesses on the basis of another agreement of sale or sale deed, which will not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC. The remedy lies for the 2nd respondent-complainant to approach either the civil court or he can seek remedy only against the persons who entered into an agreement for sale i.e., A1 to A4. The present petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the said offence in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Hence this court is of the view that the present complaint viz., C.C.No.19 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is liable to be quashed. 7. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, allowed. ______________ RAJA ELANGO, J December 8, 2011. LMV THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.5862 of 2009 08-12-2011 lmv