1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.258 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-complainant and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Brief facts relevant for considering the criminal petition are; that 1st respondent-complainant filed original suit, OS No.73 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, for partition, against 1st & 4th petitioners (arrayed as defendants 14 and 1) and others claiming half share in the suit schedule mentioned properties. Petitioners 2 and 3 are proposed defendants 15 and 16 in the said suit, as on the date of filing the complaint by the 1st respondent-complainant. It is alleged in the complaint by the 1st respondent that 1st petitioner (A1) sold away the suit D-schedule property to petitioners 2 and 3 (A2 and A3) projecting herself as if she is the daughter late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee vide Document No.2436/2008 on 26-07-2008. Subsequently, 4th petitioner (A-4) also executed a rectification deed vide Document No.1118 of 2010 on 12-3-2010 confirming sale deed executed by 1st petitioner projecting herself as if she is the grand daughter of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee.

4. 1st petitioner (A1) executing sale deed on 26-07-2008 projecting herself as if she is the daughter late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee and the rectification deed executed on 12-3-2010 by the 4th petitioner (A4) projecting herself as if she is the grand daughter of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee is not in dispute. According to the complainant, 1st petitioner is the daughter of late Khader @ Khaja Hussain and Anwar Jhan and not the daughter of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee. The complaint before the trial Court against the petitioners was for the offences under Sections 81 and 82 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, (for short, ‘the Act’). Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

5. It is alleged by the complainant that petitioners 1 and 4 (A1 & A4) intentionally made false statements as if they are daughter and grand daughter of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee, respectively, before the registering authority thereby committed offences under Sections 81 and 82 of the Act.

6. Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, leaned counsel for the petitioners would contend that whether 1st petitioner is daughter and 4th petitioner is grand daughter of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee is a matter for adjudication pending consideration before the civil Court in civil proceedings and, therefore, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 82 of the Act. He would also contend that since petitioners 1 and 4 did not falsely impersonate anybody, but only claimed to be daughter and grand daughter of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee, the prosecution under Section 82 of the Act is not maintainable. Nextly, he would contend that prosecution for offences under the provisions of the Act coming to the knowledge of the registering authority can be only initiated with the permission of the registering authority, and therefore, prosecution is not maintainable. Lastly, he would contend that against petitioners 2 and 3 (A2 & A3), it was only alleged that they colluded with 1st petitioner (A1) and based on the said allegation, petitioners 2 and 3 cannot be prosecuted.

7. Admittedly, in registered deed executed by 1st petitioner (A1) vide Document No.2436/2008 on 26-07-2008 and rectification deed vide Document No.1118 of 2010 on 12-3-2010 executed by 4th petitioner it was stated that they are daughter and grand daughter respectively of late Shaik Sattar Saheb and late Khader Bee. It is specifically alleged in para (6) of the complaint that 1st petitioner (A1) is the daughter of late Khader @ Khaja Hussain and Anwar Jha