THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1659 of 2010 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.791 of 2011 Date: 16.11.2011 CRIMINAL PETITION No.1659 of 2010 Between: K. Ananda Rao ..... Petitioner. AND The Station House Officer, P.S. Maheswaram, Rangareddy District and others. .....Respondents. CRIMINAL PETITION No.791 of 2011 Between: D. Krishna Mohan ..... Petitioner. AND The Station House Officer, P.S. Maheswaram, Rangareddy District and others. .....Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.1659 of 2010 & CRIMINAL PETITION No.791 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The 8th accused in Crime No.42 of 2007, Maheswaram Police Station, Rangareddy District filed Criminal Petition No.1659 of 2010. A6 in the same First Information Report filed Criminal Petition No.791 of 2011. A6 and A8 seek for quashment of the First Information Report. Their grounds more or less are common. Hence both the petitions are disposed of jointly through this common order. 2. A8 is 70 years old. He is a retired Mandal Revenue Officer. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A5 created spurious pattedar passbooks in their names with the help of A6 & A8 and in connivance with A6 to A8 and sold away the property to A6 on 26-05-2005 and that thus all the accused committed the offences under Sections 468, 420, 464 and 471 read with Section 120B IPC. It is contended by the learned counsel for A6 & A8 that prima facie case is not made out against them and that the First Information Report is liable to be quashed as against A6 & A8. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/defacto-complainant on the other hand contended that A6 & A8 patently committed the offences under Sections 468, 471, 420 & 464 read with Section 120B IPC and are liable for punishment. His contention is that the property is owned by the 3rd respondent and that A8 however issued Pattedar Passbook in the name of A1 to A5 on account of connivance with A6 & A8. 3. The learned counsel for A6 & A8 contended that the 3rd respondent failed to establish his title to the property and that without establishing the title, the 3rd respondent cannot proceed against A6 & A8. The learned counsel for A6 & A8 also submitted that the vendor of A3 filed civil suits in O.S.No.95 of 1999 and O.S.No.1030 of 2004 seeking for the cancellation of the sale deeds and that the two suits are pending. Be that as it may, from the very contention of the learned counsel for the accused, it is evident that the 3rd respondent purchased the property. It is the case of the 3rd respondent and admitted by the petitioners that the pattedar passbooks stood in the name of A1 to A5. It is the contention of the 3rd respondent that the 3rd respondent has been the owner of the property and that the pattedar passbooks were created by A1 to A5 in connivance with A6 to A8. Where the pattedar passbooks admittedly show A1 to A5 are the owners of the property and where the 8th respondent, as the M.R.O., deals with the pattedar passbooks, there is no alternative but to assume that A8 issued the pattedar passbooks in favour of A1 to A5 while the 3rd respondent is the owner of the property. Consequently, A8, as a revenue official would certainly be liable for the offences under Sections 468 & 471 IPC as well as under Sections 420 & 464 IPC read with 120B IPC. 4. However, the same is not the position in respect of 6th accused. There is no proper and reasonable linkage between the 6th accused and the 8th accused. Indeed, the pattedar passbooks were allegedly issued by A8. However, there is no prima facie evidence that the passbooks were issued in the name of A1 to A5 in connivance with A6. A reading of the complaint does not establish the complicity of A6 in the commission of the offence. I, therefore, consider that the First Information Report is not maintainable as against A6. At the same time, for the reason set out, the First Information Report is indeed maintainable against A8. Consequently, Crl.P.No.1659 of 2010 filed by the 8th accused is dismissed as prima facie case is made out against him. Crl.P.No.791 of 2011 is allowed as it is found that no prima facie case is made out against A6. The First Information Report consequently is quashed as against A6. Crl.P.No.791 of 2011 accordingly is allowed. Crl.P.No.1659 of 2010 is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR Date:16.11.2011 mrb