DOKURI SATHEMMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners/ A-5 to A-12 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1050 of 2016 on the file of the XX-Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri.

(2.) The facts in issue are that the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant filed a private complaint before the XX- Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, which was referred to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C . Basing on the said reference, the Police, Kushaiguda, registered a case in Crime No.790 of 2015. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against A-1 to A-12 for the offences punishable under Sections 198 , 468 , 471 , 474 , 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. The allegations in the charge sheet are that A-2 to A-12 without any authority have occupied the property of the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant and they have made an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney to A-1 vide document No.5090 of 2002 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also alleged that in collusion with each other, the accused persons have manipulated the proceedings passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal in File No.B/785/2001, dated 10.04.2002 by adding last four lines in 1st para of the order on page No.2 of the said proceedings, for their convenience and created new proceedings with forged signatures of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal and also used fake stamps and seals on the name of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Further A-1 had filed the above forged revenue proceedings before the Munsif Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No.65 of 2003, filed by the 3rd respondent/ de facto complainant and got dismissed the said suit. The accused have also filed the fabricated compromise proceedings obtained from the High Court in W.P.No.9262 of 2002, by playing fraud on the High Court by filing forged affidavits and receipts of the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant and got dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003. A-1 conspired with A-2 to A-12, created false proceedings and a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (with possession), vide document No.5090 of 2002, dated 27.09.2002 in respect of the land of the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant to an extent of Ac.4.02 gts., in Sy.No.630 and have highhandedly occupied the same and are continuing in illegal possession.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners/A-5 to A-12, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent/de facto complainant and perused the record.