P. SRIDHAR Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief;-

(2.) The precise case of the petitioner is that he is the Accused No.2 in Crime No. 155 of 2016 of 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent filed private complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada (in short "the trial court") alleging that his son purchased the land under Registered Sale Deed dtd. 8/5/2006. The Accused No.1 created an agreement of sale-cum-GPA alleged to have been executed by Danthu Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy and thereafter executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 29/9/2014. It is further alleged that the said Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy did not execute the document, but it was executed by committing impersonation, which is incorrect. Accused No.1 is the rightful owner of the property and all original documents have been handed over to the petitioner. When there was interference in possession of the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.206 of 2015 on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the son of the defacto complainant, which is pending. After lapse of one year, the present complaint has been filed only with an intention to take defence in the civil suit. The trial court without recording any reasons straight away referred the complaint to the police, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(3.) Heard Mr. V. Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel, representing Mr. P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Assistant Government Pleader, Home for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.