HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.809 OF 2008 DATE:24-06-2010 BETWEEN Kama Jaya Kalyana Raj …Petitioner AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.809 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner-A.5 in C.C.No.763 of 2003 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada filed this petition to quash the proceedings in the said C.C. against him for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420, 384 r/w 34 I.P.C. The charge sheet discloses that A.1 executed a sale agreement-cum-registered general power of attorney in favour of the de facto complainant-L.W.1 by delivering the possession of the building for a sum of Rs.36,000/-. Later, A.1 got patta for the said building and instead of giving the said patta to L.W.1, he entrusted the same to A.2 and A.3. When the de facto complainant asked A.2 and A.3 for the said patta, they demanded Rs.70,000/- for giving the said document. Then the de facto complainant reported the matter to the police, upon which, the police instructed A.1 to register the said building in favour of the complainant for which, he agreed to do so. While the matter was pending, A.1 registered the building to A.4 and A.5 and that all the accused used to blackmail the complainant demanding for Rs.70,000/- and threatening him with dire consequences for payment of the said amount. The police after due investigation and after examining L.W.1 laid the charge sheet for the said offences against all the accused. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner-A.5 is a bona fide purchaser of the building for consideration, and therefore, he cannot be charged for the said offences. As per the complaint allegations the de facto complainant was in possession of the building as on the date when A.4 and A.5 purchased the same and got registered in their favour. They are supposed to be in the knowledge about the agreement entered into by the de facto complainant with A.1 in respect of the building. Whether the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the building or not can be gone into only during the course of the trial. Therefore, no ground is made out to quash the impugned proceedings at this stage. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 24, 2010 Tsr.