LAXMI BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in taking cognizance for the offences under Ss. 420, 406, 488, 478, 467, 472 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint stating that he was an ENT Specialist and completed his Post Graduation from All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi and worked for some time at Delhi and shifted to Hyderabad and started a clinic and hospital at Panjagutta, Hyderabad in the name and style of 'Asian ENT Care Center'. He gained good reputation in his profession. He was also a visiting doctor at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. He got acquainted with A2, who was a doctor at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. A2 and A3 visited his clinic at Panjagutta and tried to convince him to purchase a land at Maheswaram Mandal stating that the said land belonged to their known persons and convinced the complainant to invest money. The complainant refused to purchase the same stating that he was not having sufficient amount to pay. But, A2 and A3 continuously persuaded and pressurized him to purchase the land for a period of three months. Finally, they suggested that they were going to register the property through A4 and A5, who were the land owners and asked him to pay the consideration amount after registration and that they would pay the registration amount of the document and hand over the registered document. Believing them, the complainant finally agreed to do so. A2 and A3 handed over the registered document bearing No. 1040 of 2011 dtd. 16/4/2011 for an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey No. 650 executed by A4 and A5. Another document was also got executed by A1 in favour of the complainant and his mother vide Doc.No.2527/2011 dtd. 20/7/2011. The complainant expressed his willingness to visit the Sub-Registrar Office at the time of registration of the documents. A1 to A3 suggested that as he was a busy doctor, he did not have to attend the Sub-Registrar Office and that they would take substitute steps for getting registration.

(3.) Heard Sri N. Avaneesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A1, Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A2, Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner-A3 and Sri Kullapareddy Suresh Babu, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.