HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3970 OF 2010 Date: 30.04.2010 Between: Chadalavada Ramesh Babu and another ……Petitioners And: Degala Suresh Kumar and another ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3970 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioners 1 and 2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420/511 and 34 IPC in Crime No.120 of 2009 of Kakinada I Town (Law & Order) Police Station. It is alleged that Bhairavaswamy and another attempted to register documents in respect of the property in Kakinada town without having any title and that the 1st respondent/defacto-complainant is the person having title in respect of that property. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that as per the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and Rules framed there under, it is the Sub-Registrar or District Registrar or Inspector General of Stamps and Registrations who are competent authorities to give report and launch prosecution in respect of offences touching registration and that the police are not competent to receive report from the 1st respondent and register the case. This is not an offence relating to registration of document. But this is an offence in respect of a property which is said to be belonged to the 1st respondent and which stated to be not belonging to the executants viz., Bhairavaswamy and another. Therefore, provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Registration Act and Rules made there under have no application to facts of this case. This is an offence which is stated to have been committed out side the Registrar’s office by way of execution of the documents which were presented for registration. The police are stated to have seized the documents which are presented for registration along with challans etc. and produced them before the Magistrate along with the accused and that the Magistrate ordered interim custody of the documents etc., on certain conditions and also released the petitioners and others on bail. Investigation of the case is in progress. At this stage, the petitioners did not file any documents to show that the property which was being sold by Bhairavaswamy and another really belonged to them. Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to intercept investigation of the case at this threshold. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:30.04.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3970 OF 2010 Date:30.04.2010 Gk.