HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No. 7533 of 2008 DATED: 14.12.2011 Between: Dr.B.Ranga Rao and four others .. Petitioners/ A1 to A5 And 1. The State of A.P. .. Respondents 2. G.Nagendra Prasad O R D E R:- 1. Heard Smt S.V.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. Petitioners herein are A1 to A5 in C.C. No. 832 of 2008 on the file of the Court of V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada (trial Court). They filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings in the above case. Offences alleged are those punishable under Sections 464, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. 3. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and petitioner Nos.3 to 5, who are the majors, are stated to be their children. It should be noted here itself that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are described as students. 4. A perusal of the allegations in the charge sheet would show that there is a dispute with regard to certain extent of land between the de facto complainant – Gurrala Nagendra Prasad and A1 and A2. The grievance of the de facto complainant is that the land belongs to him and that A1 and A2 have created a document for grabbing that land and that document is a false document. It will be seen from the charge sheet that the land originally belonged to one Panthada Peda Sathiraju and the de facto complainant is said to have acquired title to it through the daughters/legal representatives of Panthada Peda Sathiraju through their G.P.A. holder and it is alleged that both A1 and A2 created the aforementioned false document i.e. sale deed obtained in the name of A2 from one Vasamsetti Veerraju, who is said to have nothing to do with the land in question. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the earlier documents executed in favour of the de facto complainant’s vendor have been cancelled, whereas, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that there is no such cancellation. This is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. The allegation is that both A1 and A2 have created the aforesaid false document i.e. sale deed and so far as creation of this false document and other connected offences are concerned, there are allegations which disclose those offences. It should also be noted that prominent role is attributed only to A1 and A2 in creating the false documents. 6. So far as A3 to A5 i.e. petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are concerned, the charge sheet allegations do not attribute any role to them. The only role attributed to them is that on 24.01.2008, a quarrel is said to have broken out between the complainant and his men on one side and all the accused on the other and in that quarrel, A3 to A5 are also said to have threatened the complainant and his men. Nothing is clear as to how A3 to A5, who are students, have participated in this threatening incident. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no case is made out at this stage against A3 to A5 i.e. petitioner Nos.3 to 5. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Criminal Petition so far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, is dismissed, but so far as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 i.e. A3 to A5 who are students are concerned, it is allowed and the proceedings against them are quashed. It is, however, made clear that if in course of trial, evidence is forthcoming against petitioner Nos.3 to 5 also, the trial Court can proceed against them if that is warranted as contemplated under Section 319 Cr.P.C. 8. This Criminal Petition is accordingly partly allowed in the above terms. __________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 14.12.2011 bcj