Both these petitions are disposed of through this common order. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent in both the cases are common. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.508 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant. The 2nd respondent also laid First Information Report (FIR) in Crime No.380 of 2013 on the file of Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar against the petitioner. The petitioner seeks for the quashment of C.C.No.508 of 2013 through Criminal Petition No.9611 of 2013 and seeks for the quashment of FIR in Crime No.380 of 2013 through Crl.P.No.15132 of 2013. As the events are similar and the accused and the de facto complainant are identical in both the cases, both the cases are disposed of through this common order.

2. A complaint was lodged by the 2nd respondent before Mahabubnagar Police Station on 08-4-2013, which was registered as FIR in Crime No.111 of 2013. The complainant alleged that the petitioner was guilty of cheating and criminal intimidation punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The complainant claimed as follows:

The petitioner/accused is well known to the complainant/de facto complainant/2nd respondent since about 20 years. The petitioner, his uncle and others purchased Ac.1-00 cents of land in Survey No.386, Balajinagar, Bandamidipally Shivar. The petitioner and his partners agreed to execute a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of the uncle of the petitioner and the petitioner later entered into a partnership deed with the 2nd respondent agreeing to sell his share in the property in favour of the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, his share being 50% of Ac.1-00 cents of land. The partnership deed as well as the agreement between the petitioner, his uncle and others were entered into on 05-9-2012. Contending that the petitioner has not paid any profits to the 2nd respondent and that the petitioner, his uncle and others sold away the entire Ac.1-00 cents of land to third parties, it was alleged that the petitioner committed the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

3. Police registered a case under Sections 420 and 506 IPC and after due investigation, laid charge-sheet. This is the charge-sheet which is sought to be quashed by the petitioner through Crl.P.No.9611 of 2013.

4. As already pointed out, Crl.P.No.15132 of 2013 is for the quashment of FIR in Crime No.380 of 2013. The 2nd respondent contended in the complaint that he paid Rs.2,50,000/-to the petitioner on 06-3-2012 for investment, that the petitioner executed an agreement in favour of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent came to know that the petitioner did not develop the area and did not agree to enter into partnership deed with him. The 2nd respondent further alleged that the petitioner has not paid the 20% share of profits, so much so, the petitioner is liable for punishment under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that the dispute is civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings would not lie. He placed reliance upon the certified copy of the encumbrance certificate to show that the petitioner never possessed any part of land in Survey No.386. He submitted that the question of the petitioner entering into an agreement and GPA with his uncle and the petitioner entering into partnership deed or agreement with the 2nd respondent in respect of Ac.1-00 cents of land or part thereof in Survey No.386 would not arise if the petitioner is not the owner of the property.

6. To support his contention that the certified copy of the encumbrance certificate is a public document and can be relied upon, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council (AIR 2012 SC 31). In that case, arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the question arose regarding the admissibility of the