P.RAMDEV Vs. STATE OF TELANANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.6B6 of 2Ot4 on the file of P.S. Saifabad (transferred to CCS Police Station, Hyderabad and numbered as FIR No.304 of 2OL4), Hyderabad against the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.2, 19 and 20.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners tn conspiracy with the coparceners of the de-facto complainant and one A.M. Khusro impersonated Syed Ali Mohammad and filed revision petition before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy district to claim the agricultural lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.43-09 guntas in Sy.Nos.634, 635 and 638 of Kapra village, causing wrongful loss to the de facto complainant and his father. The first accused in the case hatched a plan to grab the property i.e. agricultural land to an extent of Ac.43-09 guntas in the above survey numbers and in furtherance of his intention he entered into criminal conspiracy with the other accused and one A.M.Kushroo and all the accused knowing that Syed Ali Mohammad S/o Ahmed Sahab is original pattedar and since 1954 his name is entered in pahanis and knowing the said fact they projected and introduced one A.M.Kushroo S/o Syed Amenuddin as Syed Ali Mohammed @ Syed Ali Mohammad Kushroo in the proceedings before the MRO. The original pattedar syed Ali Mohammad S/o Ahmed Sahab was not made as party and the complainant and his father were also not made parties and the two brothers of the complainant's father also were not made parties before the MRo as such they could not object before the MRO, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as a result the MRo put the accused Nos.S, 6, 7, and 8 and children of orla Madhusudhan Reddy in possession of the said lands. Thus, complaining that A.M.Khusroo intentionally impersonated as Syed Ali Mohammad and filed a Revision Petition before the Joint collector, Ranga Reddy District, vide Proc.No .D5l63IOt99 and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant by getting the order of the MRo got set aside and wrongful gain to themselves.

(3.) Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there was a series of disputes in between the other accused and the unofficial respondents pertaining to the piece of property located at sy.Nos.634,635 and 638 of Kapra village. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners are arrayed as accused in the registered FIR along with other accused without any application of mind and in a mechanical manner. The said crime has been registered against them on a reference made by the lower court. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers vide document ,fio.266712002 dtd. 24/5/2002. The said dispute between the other accused and the unofficial respondents has reached finality after series of litigations vide proceedings No.D5/6310/99 issued by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, the subject matter of the schedule of the properties in Sy.Nos.634, 635 and 638 of Kapra village, R.R.District have been transferred in the name of A1 and in the name of his relatives and close associates. Date of such documents are 24/5/2002 and 27.0L.2003 and vide registered agreement of sale - cum - GPA in respect of different persons by the A.1. That being the case, based upon a registered AGPA registered in the names of respective persons, upon verification, the petitioners would state that they have purchased the property and got it registered on the file of SRO, vide document No.2667 of 2002 dtd. 24/5/2002 and having nothing to do with the alleged allegations made by the de facto complainant. The propefi is situated in Kapra village and the said complaint has been registered before the P.S.Saifabad itself would demonstrate the ill-intention of the de facto complainant and influence of the de facto complainant to have it registered only to harass the petitioners and under the garb of the criminal prosecution the de facto complainant is trying to exert pressure on the petitioners for the reasons best known to them. The learned counsel for the petitioner also would submit that it is also a matter of fact that the said private complaint is filed on 22/8/2014 under Ss. 120-8, 419,465 IPC r/w Sec. 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was referred by the learned Magistrate to police. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the cause of action as agitated by the de facto complainant was that since the Joint collector's office is located Lakdikapul, therefore, the said complaint was referred by the learned Magistrate to saifabad police station and whereas the properties are located at Kapra which itself denotes that the de facto complainant has intentionally filed the criminal petition. So far as the knowledge of the crime is concerned the de facto complainant in his own complaint has averred that the said dispute is going on between de facto complainant and other accused for quite a long time and having kept quiet for such a long time the de facto complainant has filed the said complaint after a gap of almost 12 long years, that itself is hit by Sec. 468 of Cr.P.C and barred by limitation. Moreover having got knowledge of the offence long back it is a million dollar mystery why the de facto complainant filed the complaint in the year 2014 against the petitioners along with other accused. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that so far as the case of the petitioners is concerned, it is nowhere in the record that the petitioners are parties in the civil dispute either before the MRO, RDO or the Joint Collector for that matter and not being made parties before the proceedings before the appropriate civil courts that they implicated themselves in civil proceedings and knowingly well that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers either to extract money or to grab the left over property if any the said complaint has been filed against the petitioners though they are not riabre for the past transactions happened between the de Facto comprainant and the other accused and that the petitioners are not liabre. Hence seeks to ailow this petition and wourd submit that preriminary it is an estabrished fact that the petitioners are no'way concerned with the disputes between the de facto comprainant and other accused and they have no knowredge about such proceedings and even if the triar is aflowed to be continued stiil, nothing wourd be elicited as seen from the record that the petitioners are not invorved in the alleged offence as the rore of the petitioners has come into existence by virtue of purchasing the property as bona fide purchasers. other than that nothing would come out in the stated crime.