DANDAMUDI VENKATARATTAIAH Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition has been filed by A-1 in C.C. No.49 of 2005 to quash the proceeding therein as far as he is concerned.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are : One Bhupathi Rao is the original owner of Ac.0-43 cents of land in D.No.539/lAl of Perecherla-Guntur. He offered these lands as collateral security for the loan availed by M/s. Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Cement Products, Perecherla, Guntur. The borrower committed default in payment of the loan due to the A.P. State Financial Corporation. Consequently, the Corporation exercised the powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, and published sale notification in Eenadu on 9-1-2002 inviting tenders for purchase of the said land. The petitioner became the highest tenderer and eventually the sale came to be confirmed in his favour. He was put in possession of the property under a panchanama dated 8-3-2002 and thereafter a registered sale deed came to be executed in his favour on 15-3-2002. While so, the 2nd respondent claiming to be the purchaser of the land under registered sale deed dated 26-9-1985 presented a report before the S.H.O. Medikondur P.S. alleging inter alia that the petitioner and another accused person (A-2) trespassed into the land and started cutting eucalyptus plants situated therein. The S.H.O. received report and registered a case in crime No.32 of 2002 and proceeded with the investigation. After completing investigation a charge- sheet came to be presented before the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. The learned Magistrate took the charge- sheet on file as C.C. No.49 of 2005. Hence, this criminal petition by A-l to quash the proceeding therein.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-A1 submits that the petitioner-A-1 purchased property in the auction held by A.P. State Financial Corporation and the possession came to be delivered to him on 8-3-2002 followed by registered sale deed dated 15-3-2002. Therefore, his possession cannot be said to be unauthorized. He would further submit that even if there is any dispute between the petitioner and 2nd respondent, it is purely a civil in nature and therefore, initiation of criminal proceeding against the petitioner-A-1 is solely unwarranted.