IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Thursday, the 9th day of September, Two Thousand and Ten PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4571 of 2007 Between: Rajula Narayanareddy. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., through the SHO, Kadapa I Town, Nalgonda District and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4571 of 2007 ORDER: - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.38 of 2006 pending on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, wherein the petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused No.4, is alleged to have purchased the property under the alleged sale deed impersonating the de facto complainant. The complaint allegations and the investigation goes to show that A1 is the relative of the 2nd respondent-de facto complainant, as he married complainant’s cousin and A3 executed a sale deed, dated 15.04.2003, in favour of the petitioner/A4 impersonating the signature of the de facto complainant, which was attested by A5 and A6. A7 is the document writer of the forged document i.e., 06.04.2003. A8 is the document writer of two documents on 22.05.2003 and 23.05.2003, of which A9 is the attestor of one of the sale deeds, dated 22.05.2003 and A10 is the attestor of both the sale deeds The gist of the complaint allegations shows that the de facto complainant is the owner of the property covered by the sale deed. The de facto complainant’s father divided the family property to L.W.1- complainant and his brother into equal parts in the year 1978 and later the complainant and his brother purchased the agricultural land of Ac.0-71½ cents in survey No.147/D-3/C of Gudur village fields of Kadapa Mandal under a registered sale deed, dated 16.10.1986, in which both of them got half of the share i.e., Ac.0-35¾ cents in the undivided full extent. The complainant and his brother did not partition the said land. In the said land, the complainant is raising the crops periodically. While so in the month of December, 2003, the complainant’s brother and A3 approached him to sell his undivided half share representing him that they have arrived at a figure towards the sale consideration and to affix his signature in the agreement of sale dated 09.12.2002, wherein the brother of the complainant already attested their signature, but the complainant has not accepted the said proposal and stated that he has no idea of selling the property and that they tried to convince him, but invain. Thereafter, A3 hatched a plan to grab the property of the complainant and tried to offer the land for sale under a sale agreement, dated 09.12.2003. L.Ws.2 to 4 approached A3 to purchase the house site. Basing on the document, dated 09.12.2003, wherein the signatures of the complainant was filled up by third party, L.Ws.2 to 4 purchased the said land from A3 and paid a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- towards advance. Later L.Ws.2 to 4 approached L.W.1 and on coming to know that the complainant did not sell his share to anybody and that the said agreement was a forged agreement, with great difficulty L.Ws.2 to 4 got back their advance amount from A3 on the intervention of elders. A3 knowingly executed an agreement of sale in favour of L.Ws.2 to 4. Not satisfying with his desire, A3 colluded with A4 to A7 and with the same common intention A7 prepared a common sale deed in favour of A4. A5 and A6 attested and forged the signatures of the complainant and presented before the Registrar office, Kadapa by impersonating the complainant by another person. The charge sheet also reveals that A1 signed as Principal of the complainant before the Sub-Registrar and presented a power of attorney said to have been executed by the complainant, which was registered at Muddanur, which was obtained by the complainant. Further the investigation discloses that document No.42/03 of Sub- Registrar’s Office was a sale deed for Rs.1,50,000/- executed on 15.04.2003 and presented on 17.04.2003. The document was kept pending under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamps Act as the accused had not adopted the square yard rate of Rs.275/- fixed for the survey number. But, even before the document was referred under Section 47-A, both the executant and the claimant of the said document presented an application to the registering officer on 23.04.2003 requesting for return of the pending document without registration expressing their willingness to pay the deficit revenue to the Government and requested to return the document unregistered, the deficit stamp duty of Rs.35,860/- and registration fee of Rs.1,630/- were collected under Section 41 of Indian Stamp Act and the document was returned to the parties. Therefore, all the accused colluded together as a result with the abetment of A3, A1 committed forgery of the said forged power of attorney by impersonating himself as the complainant by preparing forged document with the help of document writer of two documents, dated 22.05.2003 and 23.05.2003. Hence the charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC. Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that A4 is a bona fide purchaser and he is not aware of the fact that A1 is impersonating the complainant in executing the document. Therefore, if at all any offence is committed, it is A3, A1 and others, but A4 cannot be charged for the said offence. This court do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when A3 entered into an agreement earlier with L.Ws.2 to 4 by impersonating the signature of the complainant and brought a forged document and on enquiring L.Ws.2 to 4 about the impersonation, they got back the advance amount paid to A3 at the intervention of the elders. Later A3 executed the agreement of sale in collusion with A4 to A7 with a common intention to get the sale deed executed. The fact is that the purchaser will pay the necessary stamp duty and registration charges. When the registrar objected for registration of the document, they have paid the stamp duty and registration charges and got return of the document, which shows that A4 connived with A2 to see that the document will not be registered having impersonated the same in the registrar’s office, which clearly constitutes an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC namely causing disappearance of the evidence about the forged document. Therefore, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings to scuttle the prosecution at the initial stage. The Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 9th September 2010 lmv