K K V SEETHARAMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the accused in Crime No. 1 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Respondent to quash the investigation pending against them in such case. The defacto complainant in the case had been impleaded as 4th Respondent by this Court under orders in Crl.M.P. No. 922 of 2006 dated 17.02.2006.

(2.) The 4th Respondent/defacto complainant had preferred a complaint before the Respondent police on 02.01.2006 informing that he was the director of the L.V.R. Group of companies and that a group company besides being engaged in granite business was also in the process of purchase of lands and the Petitioners 1 to 3 used to assist them in this regard. Placing trust upon the Petitioners 1 to 3, the 4th Respondent/complainant left several documents and papers with the Petitioners 1 to 3 towards assisting the 4th Respondent/complainant in obtaining patta/chitta to the properties purchased in the name of the company. The 4th Respondent/complainant has informed that an extent of 3.33 acres in Ulundai village stood in the name of the 4th Respondent/complainant and one Subba Rao, who was none other than the father of the Petitioners 1 to 3 and husband of the 4th Petitioner and who now is no more. According to the complaint, the Petitioners had put to use the papers entrusted to them towards forging a Power of Attorney in respect of such land, as if, the 4th Respondent/complainant had constituted the 2nd Petitioner, his power agent and on the basis thereof, entered into an memorandum of sale agreement of such property with one Fr. Lawrence Raj. The 4th Respondent/complainant came to know of the offence committed by the Petitioners when the said Fr. Lawrence Raj checked if there was any encumbrance upon the property, and contacted the 4th Respondent/complainant on finding that the agreement with him had been entered into also in respect of the 4th Respondent/complainant's property.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the complaint against them is a false and malafide one. Though the complaint was given on 24.12.2005, the same has been registered only on 02.01.2006. The Respondent police, more particularly, the 3rd Respondent, Deputy Superintendent of Police were hand in glove with the 4th Respondent/complainant party and were acting at their behest as would be evident from the fact that the Petitioners 1 to 3 had been put to several hardships by being frequently called to the office of the 3rd Respondent, being made to wait there for endless hours and being put to severe physical and mental harassment and criminal intimidation over a period of two months. In fact, the Petitioners complain of conduct of "Katta Panchayat" by the 3rd Respondent at the instance of the 4th Respondent/complainant. The Petitioners have made several complaints to the higher officials and also moved this Court by way of writ petition praying that they be provided protection.