MADHIRAJU RADHAKISHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.580 of 2014 of Khanapuram Haveli Police Station, Khammam District, filed this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in the above crime, which was registered against the petitioners and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406, 384 and 120-B read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) The 2nd respondent/de facto complainant (hereinafter referred to as the "2nd respondent") filed a private complaint against the petitioners and two others before the II-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Khammam, 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, Khanapuram Haveli Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.580 of 2014 and took up investigation. It is stated in the private complaint that since A-1 to A-4 represented that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.0.34 gts. in Sy.No.96 situated at Velugumatla Revenue Village, Khammam District, the 2nd respondent and others entered into an agreement of sale with A-1 to A-4 to purchase the said land for Rs.45,00,000/- by paying an advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on 29.10.2013 with a condition to receive the balance sale consideration after thorough survey within ten months from the date of agreement. It is further stated that the accused failed to conduct survey even after lapse of ten months. Thereafter, on 07.02.2014, A-1 to A-4 lodged a complaint before the S.H.O., Khanapuram Haveli Police Station and to the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban Mandal, stating that the said property was sold away to the 2nd respondent and others and that A-5 is trying to encroach upon the property. It is further stated that A-1 to A-4 with a mala fide intention to obtain original agreement from the 2nd respondent and others, obtained their signatures on blank papers in order to prepare a fresh agreement, but they did not do so, instead they demanded the 2nd respondent and others to pay another Rs.10.00 lakhs for obtaining N.O.C. from Revenue Authorities. The 2nd respondent came to know that A-1 to A-4 created another agreement of sale in collusion with A-5 with an intention to knock away the property, which was already sold to the 2nd respondent and others. When the 2nd respondent and others went to the house of accused and demanded them to register the property by receiving the balance sale consideration, the accused threatened them with dire consequences by using filthy language.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-1, A-3 and A-5, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent/State, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.