THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5632 of 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in Crime No. 434 of 2008 of Police Station Uppal registered under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the crime. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as they are arrayed in the complaint. The facts, which led to the filing of the complaint, are as follows: The complainant purchased a residential Plot No.145 in survey Nos. 68 to 75 admeasuring 150 square yards situated at Uppal Khalsa Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District from its owner Smt. Bellam Prasanthi through her General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) Holder Smt G.Swaroopa, wife of the accused through agreement of sale, dated 06.04.1998. It was validated by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty on 05.01.2005 in the office of the District Registrar and Collector, Rangareddy District. The executant of the agreement of sale, Smt. G.Swaroopa had a registered G.P.A. with document No.7467/97 registered at S.R.O. Uppal in her favour. The vendor, on the day of execution of the agreement of sale i.e., 06.04.1998, handed over the physical possession of the plot to the complainant and the complainant constructed a small house and is residing in it. While the matter stood thus, the same executant Smt. G.Swaroopa executed a registered sale deed bearing No.3293/00, dated 25.04.2000 in favour of J.E. Shankar Rao in respect of Plot No.146, in survey Nos. 68 to 75 admeasuring 150 square yards situated at Uppal Khalsa Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District. The complainant came to know that the G.P.A. Holder Smt. G.Swaroopa expired after the year 2000. Further the accused, who is the Managing Director of a Real Estate Company, executed a registered rectification deed in favour of J.E.Shankar Rao altering plot No.146 to 145 vide document No.13456/07 dated 12.12.2007 of S.R.O. Uppal. The accused did so deliberately to cheat the complainant without any right or authority and further the rectification was to be done by the person, who committed the mistake. The point for consideration is whether sufficient grounds are there in order to prosecute the accused under Section 420 I.P.C. It is pertinent to note here that there is no dispute with regards to the execution of the agreement of sale by the wife of the accused namely G.Swaroopa in favour of the complainant on 06.04.1998. As per the agreement of sale, the property was delivered to the complainant by the wife of the accused. It is also important to note that according to the complainant it was validated by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty on 05.01.2005 in the office of the District Collector, Rangareddy District. It is further significant to note here that admittedly, the accused executed registered rectification deed changing plot No.146 to Plot No.145 in favour of J.E. Shankar Rao. Taking into consideration, the circumstances of the case, it is clear that the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. are not attracted here because there is no allegation of the accused inducing the complainant to part with any property receiving some amount for his benefit and so on. But the allegations made against the accused certainly amount to creating a false document in favour of the third party by way of executing the rectification deed in respect of the property alleged to have been sold to the complainant under the agreement of sale which attracts Section 423 I.P.C. Of course, the matter is to be dealt with only basing upon the material available on record. Therefore, Section 420 I.P.C. is not the right provision under which the accused can be prosecuted. The trial Court has to take necessary measures in this regard. Even though wrong provision of law is given, the Courts are at liberty to proceed with the matters before them under correct provisions of law. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that when the wife of the accused executed the agreement of sale long back and no document was executed by the accused in favour of the complainant in respect of the same property, the latter cannot be prosecuted either for the offence punishable under Section 423 or 420 I.P.C. which is not tenable. When there are questions of fact to be decided on full- fledged trial and basing on the material available, I do not see any merits in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Dt. 07.04.2011 Lvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5632 of 2008 Dt. 07.04.2011