THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2777 of 2008 7th December, 2011 Between:- Bdineni Rajender .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.2777 of 2008 ORDER:- This Criminal Petition has been ﬁled under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by A.2 – Badineni Rajender in C.C.No.179 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial, to quash the proceeding therein. The 2nd respondent herein presented a report before the Station House Oﬃcer, Jagtial Town P.S., alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner herein along with other accused fabricated documents to deprive of his right over the property which he got from his father under a registered sale deed dated 13-1-2004. The S.I. of Police, Jagtial Town P.S., registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2006 for the oﬀences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 207 and 511 read with 34 of I.P.C. and issued F.I.R. During the course of investigation, the S.I. of Police collected the registered sale deeds standing in the name of the 2nd respondent herein as well as in the name of A.1 and A.2. After perusing the documents and considering the statements of witnesses, he came to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and accordingly he ﬁled a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion which reads as hereunder:- “That the father of L.W.1 i.e., Kolagani Athmaram and one Kolagani Muthyam Reddy are own brothers and they are the pattadars of Sy.No.386 to the extent of Ac.2.09 guntas. That Kolagani Muthyam Reddy executed General Power of Attorney dated 7-12-1981 in favour of his brother (father of L.W.1) to sell the land bearing Sy.No.386 of the extent of his share i.e., Ac.1.04 ½ guntas. Accordingly, the father of L.W.1 (K.Athmaram) started the selling the land by making plots from 1983 onwards. On his behalf and on his brother as G.P. likewise he had sold away the almost the entire land. In the Pahani pertaining to year 2005-2006 out of 52.50 sq.yards were shown as possessor in the name of L.W.1. It appears that L.W.1 did not ﬁle this case with clean hands. I have examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4. Any how, as both parties are having documents, the truth or otherwise of the documents and rights of the parties are to be decided by the competent Civil Court. In view of the above the ﬁnal report of this case is submitted herewith treating the case as ‘Civil Nature’. In this regard notice also served on the complainant and acknowledged copy is submitted herewith. It is therefore prayed to treat this case as such and issue proceedings accordingly.” The 2nd respondent herein ﬁled a Protest Petition under Sections 173(8), 159 and 190 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, on examining the sworn statements of the witnesses produced by the 2nd respondent, proceeded to take the case on ﬁle as C.C.No.179 of 2008. Hence, this criminal petition by A.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent – State and learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – Complainant. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (A.2) submits that the petitioner is in no way concerned with the registered sale deed allegedly executed by the father of the 2nd respondent – Complainant in favour of A.1, in which case, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the ground that the sale deed in favour of A.1 is fabricated one. Even if there is any fraud relatable to the said sale deed, it can be attributable to A.1 alone. He would further submit that the petitioner is a bonaﬁde purchaser of the property for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed from A.1 and therefore continuance of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.179 of 2008 amounts to abuse of process of Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent – complainant submits that the petitioner and A.1 colluded together and brought into existence certain documents to deprive the rights of the 2nd respondent – complainant over the property which he got under registered sale deed executed by his father. He would also submit that A.1 ﬁled a suit against the petitioner and the said suit ended in Decree, in which case the petitioner – A.2 cannot be permitted to contend that he has a valid title over the property in dispute. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. Even as per the averments in the complaint of the 2nd respondent, it is A.1 who allegedly obtained a sale deed on 14-3-1986. The complainant disputed the said sale deed standing in the name of A.1 – Akkepalli Rajesham. The petitioner herein who is A.2 purchased the property from A.1 under a registered sale deed dated 30-1-2002. It is not the case of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner and A.1 are in any way related to each other. The petitioner is neither an attestor nor identifying witness to the sale deed dated 14-3-1986, which is stated to be fabricated. In that view of the matter, continuance of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.179 of 2008 against the petitioner relatable to the sale deed dated 14-3-1986 amounts to abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.179 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 7th December, 2011 smr