ORDER:

The 2nd respondent/defacto complainant had filed a complaint registered as Crime No.300 in III Town Proddatur Police Station for offences under Section 209, 467, 468, 469, 471 of IPC and 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said crime was registered upon investigation being referred to the police by the First Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur in C.C.No.1450 of 2021. This complaint was filed against seven accused.

2. Aggrieved by the said registration of the complaint and further investigation, Accused Nos.1 to 4 have filed Criminal Petition No.8433 of 2022 and Accused Nos.5 to 7 have filed Crl.P.No.8434 of 2022 before this Court, for quashing the said complaint.

3. The genesis of this complaint is the legal notice dated 15.08.2021, sent by the advocates of accused Nos.1 and 2 (the parties herein are being referred as they are arrayed in the complaint). In this legal notice, the petitioners relying upon an agreement of sale dated 25.12.2017 had called upon the complainant to accept the remaining sale consideration and execute a deed of sale conveying certain property belonging to the de facto complainant. In reply, the counsel of the de facto complainant, by notice dated 23.08.2021, had taken the defence that there was no agreement of sale and the said agreement of sale had been fabricated by Accused Nos.1 and 2. A request was also made for production of the said agreement of sale. In reply, the advocates of the accused Nos.1 and 2, by a notice dated 28.08.2021 took the stand that the agreement of sale is not a fabricated document and attached a copy of the agreement with the legal notice. After receipt of this notice, the advocate of the de facto complainant again sent a notice dated 02.09.2021 reiterating the earlier stand of the de facto complainant.

4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had thereupon filed O.S.No.32 of 2021 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, for specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 25.12.2017. After filing of the suit, the de facto complainant had approached the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class on 30.10.2021, under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In this complaint, which was numbered as C.C.No.1450 of 2021, the de facto complainant had alleged that the agreement of sale dated 25.12.2017 had been fabricated by Accused Nos.1 and 2 and was shown to have been witnessed by Accused Nos.3 and 4. Further, the agreement of sale itself had been created at the behest of accused Nos.5 to 7. The de facto complaint took the stand that since all the accused were involved in the fabrication/forgery of the agreement of sale dated 25.12.2017, all of them require to be punished in the said offences. The Magistrate after recording the sworn statements of the de facto complainant and other witnesses had referred the matter for investigation to the Proddatur III Town Police Station. Upon such reference, Crime No.300 of 2022 was registered on 20.10.2022. One further fact which requires to be noticed is that the de facto complainant had also filed a written statement in O.S.No.32 of 2021 dated 27.04.2022.

5. The accused in the above complaint have filed both the above criminal petitions for quashing the complaint. As the issues raised in both the complaints are one and the same and since the petitioners in these petitions are accused in the same complaint, both the petitions are being disposed of by a common order.

6. Sri V.Nitesh, the learned counsel appearing for the accused in both the petitions draws the attention of this Court to the allegation of the de facto complainant, in the written statement of O.S.No.31 of 2021, that the agreement of sale dated 25.12.2017 is fabricated and forged. He submits that once genuineness of the agreement of sale has become an issue to be considered by the civil Court, further investigation in the crime, registered against the petitioners, is not permissible, as any such investigation would prejudice the rights of the petitioners in setting ou