LOKIREDDY SATYANARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6, under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

(2.) The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein was referred to Patamata Police, Vijayawada, by the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, Vijayawada, under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and report. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No.65 of 2009 was registered by Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences punishable under Ss. 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC against the accused. The crime was investigated and eventually having found prima facie evidence against all the accused regarding their complicity in the commission of the said offences, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet and the learned IV Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, took the case on file and numbered as C.C.No.51 of 2013 for the offence under Ss. 420, 468 and 471 read with 120-B IPC.

(3.) The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. She stated that her husband V.Venkateswara Rao got the property an extent of Ac.1.01 cents of land from his ancestors and an extent of Ac.0.09 cents from his paternal aunt in R.S.Nos.476/5 and 476/4 respectively through a Will. Thereafter her husband offered to sell the property to an extent of Ac.1.01 cents to B.Janardhan Reddy for a sale consideration of Rs.1,31,000.00 and executed an agreement of sale dtd. 16/1/1981 and part of sale consideration of Rs.62,310.00 was paid on different dates and later failed to perform his part of the contract and the matter was placed before the elders and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 22/7/1986 between them and said Janardhan Reddy agreed to purchase Ac.0.51 cents on or before 31/1/1987 and the husband of the 2nd respondent executed another agreement of sale in favour of G.Koteswari and three others on 22/7/1986 to an extent of 321.44 square yards. Thereafter, the husband of the 2nd respondent executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner/1st accused on 4/5/1987 under registered Doc.No.707 of 1987. Subsequently, disputes arose between them and the husband of the 2nd respondent cancelled the said GPA on 11/7/1988.