The petitioners are A-2 and A-3 in Crime No.322 of 2006 of Ramgopal Police Station, Secunderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 464, 468, 471, 420, 506 and 120-B read with 34 of IPC.

2. It is alleged in the complaint that the defacto complainant, A-1 and others are partners of a firm. They purchased one property admeasuring 908.33 square yards under a registered sale deed dated 27-01-1990. On 10-11-1981 they executed a power of attorney in favour of the first accused to enter into an agreement to receive the sale consideration and to execute a sale deed in favour of third parties. Subsequently, on 25-02-1993 the GPA was cancelled by executing a revocation deed and a copy of the cancellation deed was sent to A-1 and he received the same through an acknowledgement. A-1 seized to be the GPA holder of the complainant and other partners. Some time prior to the filing of the complaint, they came to know that the first accused sold the above property to the petitioners under a registered sale deed, dated 29-12-2005 for a sale consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. The first accused, by representing that he is the GPA, has executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. When the GPA was cancelled in 1993 and when the first accused seized to be the GPA holder, he has no authority to sell the property in favour of the petitioners. A-1 in collusion with the petitioner executed the sale deed, which is a bogus and sham document created in pursuance of the conspiracy to deprive the complainant and other partners under the guise of the sale deed. The petitioners are not the bona fide purchasers and the execution of the sale deed is the outcome of the criminal conspiracy between the petitioners and A-1, therefore, the complainant presented a complaint to the police and it was registered as the above crime.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are the bona fide purchasers of the property, which was in their possession under lease. When the first accused represented that he is a GPA holder, they believed his words and agreed to purchase the property and after paying the sale consideration, they obtained a sale deed from the first accused. There was no criminal intention on their part to obtain any fraudulent document and there was no conspiracy with A-1, therefore, they are not liable to be prosecuted and if there are any rights to be worked out, it could be done only in a civil Court.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioners and the son of A-4 are partners of a firm and at the time of sale transaction, the sale consideration was received by A-1 and he in turn withdrew the said amount and paid to A-4 who is the father of one of the partners of the firm. He, therefore, submitted that from the above circumstances, it reveals that they colluded with A-1 and a sham and nominal document was executed by A-1 in favour of the petitioners making everybody to believe that the property was sold for consideration. As the petitioners failed to ascertain from the other partners of the firm whether the GPA was in force in favour of A-1, whether the other partners were consenting for the sale of the said property, there was a conspiracy between the petitioners, A-1 and A-4, therefore, the prosecution against them is not liable to be quashed.

5. After going through the complaint, it reveals that the following allegations were made against the petitioners:

On 29-12-2005 A-1 executed a sale deed for a sale consideration of Rs.81,00,000/- though the property was worth more than 4-00 crores. The alleged transaction is not a genuine one and it is a sham and bogus one created and invented in collusion with all the accused which was evidenced by the fact that the sale consideration amount alleged to be paid by the petitioners has been drawn immediately by giving colour to the sale transaction as a genuine one, therefore, all the accused cheated them by entering into the said transactio