MOHD ASHWAQ ALI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., by accused Nos.5 and 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.405 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Maheshwaram.

(2.) The facts in issue are that on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the police, Maheswaram Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.160 of 2012 against A-1 to A-4. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 406, 506, 468, 471 and 474 read with 34 of I.P.C. The allegations in the charge sheet are that A-1 to A-3 having connived with each other, prevailed upon the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and his father to purchase the agriculture land in Sy.No.245 admeasuring Ac.1-24 Guntas, situated at Maheshwaram village, for a sum of Rs.64 Lakhs stating that the price offered by them is cheaper than the prevailing market value in the vicinity of the area. It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner/A-6, who is working as Village Revenue Officer, has also informed that the subject property under negotiating is not having any litigation and instigated the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to purchase the same. Believing the same, the complainant paid huge amount and purchased the subject property. In order to mutate the name of the complainant in the revenue record, A-1 had taken substantial amount in connivance with the petitioners/A-5 and A-6 by fabricating pattadar pass-books and title deeds as if the same are issued in accordance with the provisions of the ROR Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that even after issuance of RoR No.D/469/2008, pattadar pass books and title deeds by the 1st petitioner/A-5, who was working as In-charge Tahsildar, and the 2nd petitioner/A-6, have not entered the name of the complainant in pahaneis and I-B Register maintained under RoR Rules. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application before the Tahsildar, Maheswaram and then the Tahsildar having verified the records relating to the subject property and also on the report of the V.R.O, issued a Memo dated 18.02.2012, inter alia, stating that it is not possible to incorporate the name of the complainant in the revenue records as his vendor's name is not appearing in the revenue records and there is no extent of land as mentioned in the sale deed is available. It is further stated that A-1 to A-3 in collusion with the petitioners/A-5 and A-6 have created a fraudulent document for non-existing land with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant.

(3.) A counter came to be filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant contending that he lodged the above complaint against the petitioners/A5 and A6 and five others, who played fraud with a dishonest intention and induced him to part with the money of Rs.64.00 Lakhs for the purpose of purchasing a land to an extent of Ac.1.24 gts., in Sy.No.245 of Maheswaram Village. Before purchasing the said property, he made enquiries with the office of the Tahsildar, Maheswaram Mandal, wherein the 2nd petitioner/A6, who is working as Village Revenue Officer, informed him that the subject property under negotiation is not having any litigation and instigated him to purchase the same. In order to mutate the name of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant in the revenue records, A1 had taken substantial amount in connivance with the petitioners/A5 and A6, hatched a plan and fabricated pattadar pass books and title deeds as if the same are issued in accordance with the provisions of the R.O.R. Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further contended that A1 to A3 in collusion with the petitioners/A5 and A6, have created fraudulent documents for non-existing land with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. It is further contended that the police after investigation and collecting evidence, laid charge sheet and in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court will not look into the credentials of the evidence collected for proceeding with the trial when prima facie complaint discloses the offence and it is settled principle of law that the Court should not weigh the evidence or scrutinize the same or rely upon the discrepancies for quashing of the crime. It is further contended that the 1st petitioner/A5 indulged in number of manipulation transactions of fraudulent records and that a disciplinary action was initiated vide Proceedings No.A3/ 1818/2008, dated 29.03.2008. Even on earlier occasion, A1 and A7 filed Criminal Petition No.6490 of 2015 seeking to quash the proceedings in the above C.C., but the said petition was dismissed on 22.07.2015. Now, the petitioners/A5 and A6 and other accused, who are dodging the matter on one pretext or the other have come up with this petition on frivolous grounds to stall the proceedings in C.C.No.405 of 2014.