IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8077 OF 2009 Between: T. Ajay Kumar Reddy ..... Petitioner AND 1. Kudumula Sadanand Reddy 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioner/A8 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.381 of 2009 of Hayathnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. The allegation of respondent No.1/de facto complainant is that all the accused executed a registered document in respect of the same property to different persons with an intention to cheat the innocent purchasers in a fraudulent manner and thereby, cheated the bona fide purchasers. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A8 contended that the transactions were of the years 1982 and 1984, it is not known which transaction is genuine one; that the petitioner/A8 is not the owner of the property; that the allegations in the complaint would go to show that A1 to A6 are the absolute owners of the property in question; and therefore, the question of executing a registered document by this petitioner/A8 does not arise. Hence, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings. 4. No doubt, it is stated in the complaint that A1 to A6 were the absolute owners of the property in dispute, but, at the same time, a specific allegation is levelled against the present petitioner/A8 also alleging that all the accused including the present petitioner/A8 executed registered documents in favour of different persons on different occasions suppressing the earlier transaction. Whether the petitioner/A8 executed a document along with A1 to A6, or whether the petitioner/A8 is the owner of the property, or whether as to why the petitioner/A8 has to execute documents in the names of different persons, are the aspects required to be investigated by the police. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint would, prima facie, go to show that the present petitioner/A8 also executed a registered document along with the other accused and sold the property twice to two different persons, thereby causing loss to the bona fide purchasers and also wrongful gain in the second transaction. Therefore, the allegations in the complaint made out a prima facie case for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Hence, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in Crime No.381 of 2009. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 5th October, 2009. KL