IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3436 OF 2010. Date:21.04.2010 Between:- Uppari Venkatesham ..Petitioner/Accused No.4 And The State of A.P. through Public Prosecutor, A.P.High Court, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER:- The petitioner/fourth accused is accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 120-B and 34 I.P.C. in Crime No.14 of 2010 of Hayathnagar Police Station of Cyberabad. 2. Subject matter of the dispute is Plot No.37 in Sy.No.320 of Pedda Amberpet village measuring 222 sq.yards. It is alleged that on representation of the petitioner on his behalf and on behalf of the other accused being their general power of attorney, the second respondent/defacto complainant paid several amounts to the fourth accused and to his son-V.Mahesh in his presence and obtained receipts and also obtained link documents and ‘no encumbrance’ certificate for the property. Subsequently, the second respondent filed O.S.No.1416 of 2009 in Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Lal Bahadur Nagar, Ranga Reddy District for damages and it is stated to be pending. 3. Now, the petitioner contends in this petition that he has not received any consideration from the second respondent and that he has not registered any sale deed in favour of the second respondent on 06.03.2003 and that he did not sell Plot No.37 to the second respondent. They are all questions of fact, which cannot be gone into and decided in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the Investigting Officer to come to his conclusion basing on evidence to be collected during investigation. At this stage, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to intercept the investigation. 4. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 21st April 2010 AMD