THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7633 OF 2007 DATED 15th JULY, 2010. BETWEEN Dr.Sudhir Madisetty ..Petitioner-A.1 and 1) V.Vidyasagar Reddy 2) The State of A.P. ..Respondents-Complainant THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.7633 OF 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the petitioner-A.1 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. The prosecution case is that initially in the year 1994 and 1995 A.1 and other pattedars of the lands in survey Nos.87, 86, 91 have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner and others. Subsequently, in the year 2005 again A.1 knowing fully well about the earlier GPAs again executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of A.4 for the land in survey No.91 to an extent of 7780 sq.yards, but the GPAs executed earlier were not cancelled. Basing on the recent GPA, A.2 to A.4 trespassed into the plots of the complainant and others and damaged the original structure of land by using bulldozers and thereby the accused were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under sections 420, 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to the prosecution the petitioner executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of A.4 by which A.4 and others entered into the property of the de facto complainant and damaged the property. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner had not played any direct role in the offence. As such, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to the quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de facto complainant submitted that on the basis of a General Power of Attorney earlier in the year 1994-95 some portion of the property was sold to the de facto complainant and in the year 2005 suppressing the earlier GPA, the present petitioner again executed another General Power of Attorney in favour of A.4 in connection with survey No.91. Hence, the petitioner is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court perused the entire material on record, which includes the statements of the witnesses. Section 420 of Indian Penal Code runs as follows: “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” A reading of the entire allegations leveled in the complaint does not attract the ingredients of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, it can be said that the petitioner has not committed any offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which is also agreed by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant with great hesitation. Execution of a General Power of Attorney in connection with sale of certain properties by no stretch of imagination attracts an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Further it is not the case of the de facto complainant that by way of General Power of Attorney the petitioner tried to sold the property, which was already purchased by the de facto complainant. Hence, this Court is of the view that no offence is committed by the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC. As far as the offence under sections 447 and 427 of IPC is concerned, even according to the complainant, it is not his case that the petitioner was present at the scene of offence and he entered into the property and damaged the property. Hence, no case is made out against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 447 and 427 of IPC also. In view of the foregoing discussion, the further proceedings in C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed against the petitioner-A.1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated : 15.07.2010 sur