THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6644 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Sri Rajesh singh, S/o. Mahadev Singh, Bank employee, R/o.TRT-133, Sethaphalmandi, Secunderabad. PETITIONER AND 1. V. Vijendra Kumar, S/o. V. Uma Shankar, R/o. H.No.4-2-52/8, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Wasim Ahmed Khan Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Sham S. Agarwal Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri K. Surender Counsel for the Respondent No.4: G. Suresh Goud Court made the following order: ORDER: The petitioner, who was arrayed as A.3 in Crime No.336 of 2007, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against him. The first respondent lodged a complaint before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad against respondents 3 and 4 and the petitioner herein, stating that he purchased a property bearing H.No.28-44/20A in Plot No.20A, Sy.Nos.416 and 417 situated at Kanajiguda, Doddi Village, under Alwal Municipality Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from Sri M. Bharath Raj, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2353 of 2006, dated 25.04.2006. The said Bharath Raj purchased the same from Sri Nagabirava Basaveswar Rao under a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2005. The said Nagabirava Basaveswar Rao has purchased the said house property from its original owner Gaddam Yadaiah, the third respondent herein, under a registered sale deed dated 4.09.2002. While so, the petitioner herein, namely, Rajesh Sing, has filed a case against the third respondent in O.S.No.1538 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, making M. Bharath Raj, Naga Basaveswar Rao and Gaddam Yadaiah as defendants, claiming that the number of the said plot is 20 but not 20/A and the same is pending. It was further alleged in the complaint that the third respondent herein, after receiving the notice sold the property and now in collusion with the petitioner herein has given false affidavit before the Court to gain wrongfully, and as such, he cheated him to grab the said property illegally. On receipt of said complaint, the police registered a crime and filed Remand Case Diary Part-I before the Magistrate Court stating that the investigation reveals that the plot bearing No.28-44/20 claimed by the petitioner, was in fact, belonged to one S.C. Peter, Prudential Bank Colony. Hence, it is clear from the investigation that A.1 and A.2, namely, Gaddam Yadaiah and Gaddam Muthyalu, wanted to register the said plot to the petitioner (A.3), to make money again. The petitioner filed the suit in collusion with A.1, showing M. Bharath Raj, Naga Basaveswar Rao and Gaddam Yadaiah as defendants, claiming that the number of the said property is 20 but not 20/A and that he has purchased the same from G. Krishna and the same is pending for registration. In order to avoid the first respondent/complainant from the scene, all the accused with a criminal intention had filed the suit and the counter affidavit. Therefore, they committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. When the petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the property he has not committed any offence by institution of suit claiming the relief. The presumption that respondents 3 and 4 wanted to register the same plot in favour of the petitioner to make more money and for the said purpose the petitioner filed a suit, cannot be a ground to proceed criminally against him. It is always open for the first respondent/complainant to implead himself in the pending suit and establish his right over the suit schedule property. In the absence of any offence committed by the petitioner he cannot be arrayed as an accused on the assumptions and presumptions. Therefore the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. Accordingly the Criminal Petition is allowed. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 6th August, 2010 Js.