P. MALLESH Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners/A-1 to A-4, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.1320 of 2016 of L.B.Nagar Law and Order Police Station, Cyberabad District, which was registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 511 and 120-B read with 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) The facts in issue are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 before the II-Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, for the aforesaid offences, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C . Basing on the said reference, the police, L.B.Nagar Law and Order Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.1320 of 2016 for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation.

(3.) The allegations in the private complaint in brief, are that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of open plot bearing No.45 admeasuring 126 sq. yards situated in Sy.No.9/1/L, Siris Road, L.B.Nagar Circle, Saroornagar Village & Mandal, Rangareddy District, having purchased the same from its lawful owner by name V.Ajay Kumar S/o. Jangaiah, for valid sale consideration under a notarized Agreement of Sale, dated 04.06.2014 and later she has constructed compound wall around it and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that originally one Kanth Prasad and two others were pattadars of the land admeasuring Ac.1.20 gts., and they divided the land into residential plots as per layout and were sold to the prospective purchasers through their Registered General Power of Attorney Holder M.Lingamaiah vide G.P.A.No.96 of 1983, dated 10.06.1983. One B.Raghu had purchased the subject property from the said G.P.A.Holder through a notarized agreement of sale dated 08.10.1984, who in turn sold away the same to V.Ajay Kumar (Vendor of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant). Hence, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and her predecessors in title have been continuously enjoying peaceful possession of the subject property without interference from any corner whatsoever. While so, the petitioners/A-1 to A-4 without any manner of right interfered with her possession. Thereupon, she instituted a civil suit O.S.No.1259 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District. The petitioners/A-1 to A-4 filed counter along with some documents. Later, on verification of the documents, she came to know that the documents filed are forged and fabricated and the said documents were brought into existence only to grab her property. Having come to know of the forgery, collusion and fabrication of documents, she filed the private complaint. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-1 to A-4, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent-State and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.