HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5147 of 2007 Date: 21-04-2010 Between: Azam Muslehuddin and others ……….. Petitioner and The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor and another ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Crl.P.No. 5147 of 2007 ORDER: This Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2006 in Cr.No.133 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, Medak District. 2. The petitioners herein are A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-6. The complainant filed a complaint alleging that he is the owner and possessor of the disputed land i.e., 0-27 guntas purchased from out of Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.138/E. It is also his case that he along with his two brothers purchased Ac.2-00 of land in Sy.No.138/AA out of the total extent of Ac.6-03 guntas from the original owner one Maqdoom Mohiuddin S/o Vaseemoddin under a private sale deed and subsequently the patta was transferred in R.O.R. in the year 1998 and 13-B and 13-A certificates were issued in his favour and in favour of his brothers. It is alleged that A-1 to A-4 in collusion with A-5 and A-6 got registered the patta land of the complainant from the daughter of Qursheed Mohiuddin, who are no way concerned with the patta land of the complainant and his family. It is also alleged that A-1 to A-4 forged the registered sale deed No.4209, dated 02-05-2006 and filed a suit in O.S.No.186 of 2006. It is also alleged that A-1 to A-6 knowingly that Sy.No.138/E is not the patta land of Aisha Zameen and Nazmus Saher, got executed the registered sale deed in favour of A-5 and A-6 with the help of A-7 and A-8. 2. The police, after completing the investigation, filed a report stating that Ac.2-03 guntas in Sy.No.138/E belongs to Qursheed Mohiuddin and after his death, his two daughters namely, Aisha Zameel and Nazmus-Saher sold the said land to the accused persons and got it registered. The complainant filed two civil suits in O.S.Nos.188/2006 and 189/2006 and that the Accused filed suit in O.S.No.186 of 2006 against the complainant and his two brothers and that the matter is of civil nature. The complainant filed protest petition, which is registered as Crl.M.P.No.49 of 2006. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and issued process to the Accused. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complaint does not disclose the fact that A-5 and A-6 filed Appeal under Section 5 of the ROR Act, 1971 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Medak against the order passed by the Tahsildar in Case No.E/148/2007 and that the RDO allowed the petition filed by A-5 and A-6 declaring them as owners of the land and that the father of A-5 and A-6 has not sold the land to the complainant and therefore, the entry made in favour of the complainant and his brothers against Sy.No.138E is not correct. 4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that challenging the order passed by the RDO, the complainant filed Revision before the Collector and the same has been pending. 5. It is the settled law that the Magistrate is not bound to accept the report filed by the police. As per the procedure notice was issued to the complainant after filing the report by the police treating the case as of civil nature. Admittedly the complainant filed the protest petition and his statement was recorded. Even in the said statement the complainant categorically alleged that A-1 to A-4 in collusion with A-5 and A-6 got executed a registered sale deed and created a forged document to deprive his right. Whether the said sale deed executed by A-5 and A-6 in favour of A-1 to A-4 is genuine or not and whether it is a forged document or not cannot be decided in these proceedings. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant in his earlier suits did not aver about the execution of the forged documents, no documents have been filed in support of his contention. Anyhow, it is not for this Court to decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant or by the Accused. However, the Accused may file all the documents before the learned Magistrate in support of their defence version, in the criminal proceedings. 7. Subject to the above observation, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. __________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 21-04-2010 YCR