THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7047 of 2009 8th September 2009 Between: Mohd. Abdul Majeed, S/o. Abdul Khadar, 50 years, Private Employee, R/o. H.No.6-3-609/70/A, Anand Nagar, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. …PETITIONER AND 1. Smt.Rukhiya Begum, W/o. Late Mohammad Wahab, 59 years, Household, R/o.H.No.10-1-982, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7047 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner-accused No.2 filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the complaint filed by the first respondent herein for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {IPC}, which was registered as crime No.898 of 2008 by the S.H.O., Panjagutta P.S., Hyderabad. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that her husband is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.6-3-609/70/A, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, having purchased the same under a registered document No.1240/1967 dated 01.05.1967. In the year 2003, her husband died and in the year 2005, the Tahsildar, Khairatabad, advised her to apply for regularization. Accordingly, she applied to the Collector for regularization of the Government land and the Collector considered her regularization of Government land and directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,46,554/- towards regularization fee. After she paid the amount, the Collector executed a Conveyance Deed in her favour on 24.04.2008 in respect of 215 square yards of site. During the lifetime of her husband, her husband allowed the present petitioner to live in one portion. When the de facto complainant asked the petitioner-A2 to vacate the premises, she came to know that A1, who is her brother-in- law forged documents and executed a gift deed in favour of the present petitioner-A2. Therefore, she lodged a complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner-A2 contended that a civil litigation is pending between the parties with regard to the title and that the alleged regularization by the Collector was obtained behind back of the petitioner, that there was no allegation of inducement or cheating as alleged by the de facto complainant against the present petitioner, that the rights of the parties in respect of disputed site have to be decided by the competent civil Court and therefore, continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner-A2 is abuse of process of Court and to prevent the same, the proceedings against the petitioner- A2 have to be quashed. The allegation is that A1, who is one of the brothers-in-law of the de facto complainant, executed gift deed in favour of the present petitioner-A2. If the present petitioner-A2, knowing fully well that the donor has no right, accepts the gift, it amounts to wrongful loss. The specific allegation made in the complaint is that the Government regularized the land to the extent of 215 square yards in favour of the de facto complainant on her payment of requisite regularization fee, and in pursuance of the said payment, the Collector executed Conveyance Deed in her favour. So long as the Conveyance Deed is declared as null and void by competent authorities, it can be said that the de facto complainant can have any right over the property. As on today, the conveyance deed is not declared as void. Simply because a civil suit is pending, that does not mean that Conveyance Deed executed by the Collector should not be given effect. The de facto complainant, prima facie, showed that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the property. In such a case, one of the brothers-in-law of the de facto complainant {A1} has no right to execute any gift deed in favour of the present petitioner-A2. Whether the petitioner-A2 is having any knowledge of the title of the property or not, or he accepted the gift knowingly that it does not belong to donor, are the matters to be enquired during the course of investigation and at the threshold stage, the complaint cannot be quashed. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner-A2 allegedly caused wrongful loss to the de facto complainant by accepting the gift deed and a case is made out against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. Hence, the question of quashing the complaint does not arise. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 8th September 2009 RRB