VISHANDAS KANWARMAL LAKHWANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2493 of 2014 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad, against the petitioners 1 to 9, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 198,199,200,417,468,471 and 120-B of IPC.

(2.) The petitioners are the accused 1 to 9 and respondents 3 and 4 are the defacto complainants. The defacto complainants filed a private complaint before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Ss. 198,199,200,417,468,471 and 120-B of IPC, alleging that, the father of the defacto complainants purchased land of an extent of Ac.64-10 gts in Sy.Nos.317, 329, 330, 332, and 333 situated in Poppalaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, alleging that the petitioners have obtained order dtd. 2/6/2014 by claiming falsely on an untenable applications before Respondent No.14 therein, the Recording Authority under the Record of Rights Act with a false statement as per the application of the petitioners dtd. 29/5/2013 seeking amendment of the Revenue Records as per the Sanad. It is further alleged that the Petitioner No.9 herein who has been shown as A-9, abusing his position as Officer in the government, alleged to have inserted the affidavit of Accused No.10 in the proceedings before the Tahsildar/A-14.

(3.) It is further contended that, the petitioners filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings, on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint that Pathumal as sole and exclusive owner of the said lands through his General Power of Attorney holder Puranmal Agarwal had sold all the lands in Sy.No.s.317, 329, 330, 332 and 333 total admeasuring Ac.64-10 gts situated at Poppalguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the respondent nos. 3 and 4 - late A. Ramaswamy along with his brother-in-law late K. Rama Murthy on 20/6/1968 under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.763 of 1968 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad West is misconceived. The mutation and the entries in the pahanis were carried-out subsequent to the execution of the sale deed on 20/6/1968 and they claimed title over the lands. The petitioners herein have admittedly filed an application with false allegations without first obtaining decree from the competent court about the rights of the accused 1 to 8 in the said survey numbers referred supra and more so, when the land in the above survey numbers was conveyed by the Sanad holder Pathumal in the year 1968 to K. Ramaswamy and K. Rama Murthy and others, claimed 50% share and incorporation of names for the property. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute offences, muchless, offences punishable under Ss. 198, 199, 200, 417, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.