ARVIND SRIMAL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are A2 and A3 in Crime No.322 of 2006 of Ramgopal Police Station, Secunderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 464, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B read with 34 of IPC.

(2.) It is alleged in the complaint that the de facto complainant, A1 and others are partners of a firm. They purchased one property admeasuring 908.33 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 27/1/1990. On 10/11/1981 they executed a power of attorney in favour of the first accused to enter into an agreement to receive the sale consideration and to execute a sale deed in favour of third parties. Subsequently, on 25/2/1993 the GPA was cancelled by executing a revocation deed and a copy of the cancellation deed was sent to A1 and he received the same through an acknowledgement. A1 ceased to be the GPA holder of the complainant and other partners. Sometime prior to the filing of the complaint, they came to know that the first accused sold the above property to the petitioners under a registered sale deed, dated 29/12/2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000.00. The first accused, by representing that he is the GPA, has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. When the GPA was cancelled in 1993 and when the first accused ceased to be the GPA holder, he has no authority to sell the property in favour of the petitioners. A1 in collusion with the petitioner executed the sale deed, which is a bogus and sham document created in pursuance of the conspiracy to deprive the complainant and other partners under the guise of the sale deed. The petitioners are not the bona fide purchasers and the execution of the sale deed is the outcome of the criminal conspiracy between the petitioners and A1, therefore, the complainant presented a complaint to the police and it was registered as the above crime.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the bona fide purchasers of the property, which was in their possession under lease. When the first accused represented that he is a GPA holder, they believed his words and agreed to purchase the property and after paying the sale consideration, they obtained a sale deed from the first accused. There was no criminal intention on their part to obtain any fraudulent document and there was no conspiracy with A1, therefore, they are not liable to be prosecuted and if there are any rights to be worked out, it could be done only in a Civil Court.