THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11330 OF 2010 Dated 24-11-2011 Between: Kalvakuri Inanammagari Vengamma and others. ..Petitioners. And: State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11330 OF 2010 ORDER: This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.129 of 2010 dated 28-9-2010 of Porumamilla Police Station, Kadapa District. Petitioners 1 to 4 herein are A.1 to A.4 respectively. Third respondent herein is the complainant on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Badvel. The learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint to the police who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.129 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 465 I.P.C. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Petitioners 1 to 3 herein claiming to be the owners of the land in S.No.161/1 an extent of Ac.0.82 cents situated in Rangasamudram village, Porumamilla Mandal, Kadapa District offered to sell the same to the third respondent for a consideration of Rs.33,00,000/- who had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance on 22-1-2009 and agreed to pay the remaining balance of sale consideration on or before 22-5-2009. Subsequently, A.1 to A.3 informed the third respondent that a civil dispute in O.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Badvel filed by one Kalavakuri Gnanammagari Ranemma was pending and they would receive the remaining sale consideration amount and execute the sale deed as soon as the civil dispute is over. The main allegation of third respondent is that in the meanwhile, A.1 to A.3 have executed the registered sale deed in favour of A.4 and for the purpose of executing the sale deed, they have intentionally, or purposefully altered the S.No.161/1 as 164/2 in the pass book and remaining record in order to cheat him. It appears that an order of injunction in I.A.No.45 of 2009 in O.S.No.14 of 2009 was in force restraining A.1 to A.4 from alienating the property in S.No.161/1.A alleging that A.1 to A.4 have altered S.No.161/1 to 164/2, the complaint has been lodged. The contention of the petitioners is that the third respondent himself has assaulted them and when they lodged a complaint to the police as a counter blast, he filed the complaint in question. It is also their case that third respondent has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.24 of 2010 on the file of the 1st Additional District Judge, Cuddapah and I.A.No.514 of 2010 in that case seeking amendment of plaint has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are vague and there is no specific allegation against each of the petitioners. It is also his further submission that no specific boundaries have been mentioned in the agreement of sale and hence, the complaint is not maintainable. It is well settled law that truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint cannot be enquired into in quash proceedings. From the contents of the complaint, it cannot be said that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners. Therefore, I do not see any reason to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 24-11-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.11330 OF 2010 Dated 24-11-2011