NAGABHUSHNAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Criminal Petitions are disposed of through this common order. The second accused in Crime No.76 of 2013 of Arvapalli Police Station, Nalgonda District filed Crl. Petition No.9703 of 2003. A.1 in the same case filed Crl. Petition No.13318 of 2013. Both the petitioners seek for the quashment of the First Information Report (FIR). Hence, both the petitioners are disposed of through this common order.

(2.) THE third respondent is the de facto complainant. The second accused is his daughter. The first accused is the Village Revenue Officer working in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Arvapalli, Nalgonda. It is the case of the third respondent/de facto complainant that A.2 created a settlement deed in her favour for an extent of Ac.5.00 guntas of land in Survey No.474, Vardhamanakota village, Arvapalli Mandal as if the third respondent executed the settlement deed in favour of the second accused on 13.12.1999. It is the case of Smt. N. Archana, learned counsel for the third respondent that at the time of the marriage of the second accused, there was a demand for dowry whereupon the third respondent agreed to give Ac.1.00 guntas of land in Survey NO.474 in favour of the second accused. She pointed out that the third respondent owns Ac.15.00 guntas of land. He has three children including the second accused. Her contention is that when the third respondent was ready to execute the settlement deed for Ac.1.00 guntas of land in favour of the second accused, the second accused obtained settlement deed for Ac.5.00 guntas of land misrepresenting to the third respondent that the third respondent was executing a settlement deed for Ac.1.00 guntas of land only.

(3.) SRI R. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the accused submitted that the third respondent executed the settlement deed dated 13.12.1999 in favour of his daughter (A.2) and that A.2 has been in possession from the date of the settlement deed. He further pointed out that the revenue records were mutated in the name of A.2 in the year 2000. He also submitted that A.2 later sold parts of the land to third parties in the year 2000 and that no objection was raised either by the third respondent or by any other person regarding the title of A.2.