THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2743 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 31.3.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa, whereunder and whereby the order dated 2.12.2008 in Crl.M.P. No.3076 of 2008 in C.C. No.164 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 under Section 239 Cr.P.C., was confirmed. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, may be stated as follows. Defacto complainant-Shaik Rahamthulla is the owner of Ac.0.90 cents, Ac.0.50 cents and Ac.0.41 cents of land purchased through document nos. 205/4, 204/3 and 206/5. A.1 engineered impersonation of the defacto complainant before the Sub Registrar, Kadapa and obtained sale deeds in favour of A.2 and A.3 as if the defacto complainant executed the sale deeds. On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant that he never executed the sale deeds and no consideration was passed on to him, under the sales, police registered the case and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no such person by name ‘Shaik Rahamatulla’; that, police have not produced the said Shaik Rahamatulla into the court, and that there is no allegation with regard to forgery, even if the entire allegations in the charge sheet are taken as true and correct, and hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that a prima facie case for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. is made out. 5. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. The petitioners filed the petition under Section 239 Cr.P.C. to discharge them on the ground that even if the entire allegations are taken as true and correct, they do not make out a prima facie case. When, after considering the allegations in the charge sheet and the documents filed along with the charge sheet, if the Magistrate comes to the opinion that no prima facie case for the offences alleged is made out, the question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. would arise. The trial Court, considering the allegations in the charge sheet and other documents filed along with it, came to the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for the offences under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. and accordingly took cognizance. 6. Whether the person by name Shaik Rahamthulla is there or not, and, whether any forgery is committed or not, are the matters to be decided by the trial Court after evidence is let in. But, the allegations in the charge sheet would go to show that one Shaik Rahamthulla was owner of Ac.0.90 cents, Ac.0.50 cents and Ac.0.41 cents of land having purchased the same under registered sale deeds and that A.1 impersonating said Rahamthulla, got registered sale deeds in favour of A.2 and A.3 and therefore the accused committed the offences of cheating and impersonation. Therefore, a prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out. As regards the offence of forgery, when the defacto complainant has not executed sale deeds in favour of A.2 and A.3, it necessarily involves forgery by some person. Therefore, both the courts below rightly found that there are no grounds to discharge the accused. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law, and they are based upon proper appreciation of the material on record. 7. The Criminal Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ----------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 13.08.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2743 of 2009 Date: 13.8.2010 Between: N.Chandra Reddy & others …Petitioners And State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2743 of 2009 13.8.2010