1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 & A-2 in C.C.No.272 of 2015 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 & 420 IPC.

2. The second respondent lodged a written report with the police alleging that his grandmother late Pentakota Ramayamma acquired land in the extent of Ac.1.15 at Kapparada, Kancharlapalem, Visakhapatnam situated in old survey No.17/2 (New Survey No.33/3) through the Document No.1582/1952 registered at the Sub-Registrar Office, Visakhapatnam on 24-10-1952 and it was in her possession. Subsequently, his grandmother sold part of the said land to different parties and the land remained only 200 Sq.Yards. After the demise of his grandmother and grandfather, his father Ramu Naidu and his paternal uncle Appala Naidu succeeded ancestral property i.e. 200 Sq.Yards of land. In the said land, his father constructed a thatched house and let out the same to one Koruvada Suryanarayana and his family. Thereafter, the said tenant Suryanarayana and his legal heirs by name K.Nageswara Rao (Elder son), K. Trinadha Rao @ Trinadh (younger son), Ramanamma (Daughter) started claiming right over the property on the pretext that it is assigned land. On witnessing the same, they have filed a suit OS No.1033/2003 before IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Visakhapatnam. During trial, the respondents filed forged pattas purported to have been issued by the then Tahasildar as per Board Standing Order 21 as if they were having land in Survey Nos.33/4B, 33/4C and 33/4D, thereby, claimed title, right over the said property, as if they are lawful owners of the property.

3. The second respondent filed an application under Right to Information Act for furnishing information based on settlement adangal. The information furnished by the Tahsildar disclosed that no pattas were issued and that those pattas were fake. Thus, the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 & 420 IPC and requested the police to take necessary action against this petitioner.

4. On the basis of the complaint, the police registered the above crime and issued F.I.R for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 & 420 IPC. On the strength of the F.I.R, the first respondent took up investigation and examined as many as 11 witnesses and recorded their statements and filed charge sheet after coming to prima facie conclusion that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 & 420 IPC.

5. The petitioners who are arrayed as A-1 & A-2 in the above crime filed this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.272 of 2015 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam, on the ground that the second respondent having lost his claim in R.C.C.No.89 of 1987 resorted to frivolous litigation by filing O.S.No.1033 of 2003 against the petitioners before the Rent Controller, Visakhapatnam and failed in his attempt to evict these petitioners under the provisions of the Rent Control Act and Civil Court.

6. The suit O.S.No.1033 of 2003 filed by father of the second respondent/defacto complainant and two others on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam was also dismissed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against the decree and judgment by the father of the second respondent/defacto complainant and two others in A.S.No.97 of 2008, the same was also dismissed the Principal District Judge at Visakhapatnam on 17.02.2010, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court, no second appeal was preferred and the order of the Trial Court have become final. On 19.02.2012 the father of the second respondent/defacto complainant and family members filed P.L.C.No.1538 of 2012 to reconcile the matter. But, the matter was closed on 02.01.2013. Having failed in all his attempts, father of the second respondent/defacto complainant filed suit O.S.No.139 of 2013 on