THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3493 OF 2008 ORDER: This is a petition filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings against the present petitioner, who is Accused No.2, in Crime No.148 of 2007 of Shameerpet Police Station. 2. The said crime was registered against the present petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 415, 420, 468, 471, 423 read with 120 (b) and 34 IPC alleging that under the guise of G.P.A, Accused No.1 in collusion with the present petitioner and another accused executed the alleged sale deeds fraudulently by taking sale consideration even though he has no manner of right to deal with the subject property. 3. The contention of the petitioner’s counsel is that in the complaint lodged by the defacto-complainant it was mentioned that Accused No.1 in collusion with the present petitioner and another accused executed the alleged sale deeds fraudulently by taking sale consideration. But, in the same complaint, it is also alleged that A.1 to A.3 are hand-in-glove with each other and brought into existence the alleged sale deeds by causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Admittedly, A.1 and A.3 have filed Criminal Petition No.5629 of 2007 for quashing of the said F.I.R. against them and the same was dismissed holding that the averments made in the petition are to be considered during the course of trial. Admittedly, the case is only at the crime stage and so far no charge sheet is filed and it is for the investigating agency to investigate into the allegations made against the present petitioner whether he is colluded with Accused No.1 and alleged sale deeds are brought into existence or not. At this stage, the contents made in the complaint prima-facie reveals allegations with regard to the collusion of the accused in brining the sale deeds into existence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences and it is a pre-mature stage of investigation. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for quashing of the proceedings as prayed for. 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 18th March, 2011 KSP