This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2008 on the file of Yemmiganur Town Police Station, Kurnool District/the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, insofar as the petitioners-A1 to A3 (for short A1 to A3) are concerned. The case is registered for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Whereas the petitioners are A1 to A3, the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the criminal case.

3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The de facto complainant purchased an extent of Acs.2.67 cents of land in Sy.No.388-B from one Ch. Veeraswamy under a registered sale deed No.1195 dated 13.6.1978 and thus acquired absolute rights over the said property. Dhanunjaya (A2) and his brothers are interfering with his rights over the property without any manner of right. On enquiry, it was revealed that K. Abdul Kalik (A3) along with one V.C.R. Anjaneyulu, the brother of the de facto complainant, got created a registered sale deed No.3808 dated 3.11.1993 in respect of Ac.1.76 cents of land in Sy.No.388-A in favour of A3 without any manner of right and they took the sons of the de facto complainant i.e., Ravikumar and Raviteja to one B. Bangari and from there to the house of one D. Mallikarjuna, Advocate (A4) on 22.10.2008 in respect of that issue and asserted with the sons of the de facto complainant that the de facto complainant had sold away the property to them and A2 would pay the sale consideration, which the sons of the de facto complainant refused. At that time A4 altered the Survey number from 388-A to 388-B fraudulently in the relevant document. Further with the help of the said forged document, they filed a suit against the de facto complainant on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur and obtained an injunction order in favour of A3. With the help of the said fake document and thereby they cheated the Court also in obtaining that injunction order.

4. It is the contention of learned Counsel for A1 to A3 that there is no element of cheating with regards to the sale of the property and obtaining the injunction and hence Section 420 IPC is not attracted and further the ingredients of Sections 467, 468 apart from Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC are also not attracted in the present case as the document claimed by A1 to A3 is a true one and hence the proceedings initiated against A1 to A3 amount to abuse of the process of law and the same may be quashed. He has also contended that the matter involves purely civil liability to take cognizance of it on the criminal side.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have opposed the petition claiming that the allegations made against A1 to A3 clearly attract the said provisions of law.

6. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient ground to quash the proceedings initiated against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 420 read with Section 34 IPC?

7. In order to attract the provisions of Sections 467 and 468 IPC, the ingredients of Sections 463 and 464 IPC are to be satisfied.

Section 463 IPC enjoins:

"Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."

Section 464 IPC enjoins:

"A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-

First- Who dishonestly or fraudulently-

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

(c) affixes any ele