IMPORTANT POINT
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations do not disclose a prima facie case of a criminal offence.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") by the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.676 of 2012 on the file of the Court of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, registered for the offence under Ss. 468, 471 and 420 IPC, against them.

2. Heard Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The brief facts of the case, as per the charge sheet, are as follows:

(i) While the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, who was a builder, and his friend viz., L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu, who was a Teacher in D.A.V.Public School, were searching to purchase a suitable land in Madhavadhara for development, through L.W.6(M.Kondalarao), they approached the 1st petitioner/A.1, who got introduced himself as a landlord and stated that there is an ancestral property to an extent of Ac.3.00 cents situated in Sy.Nos.291P, 293, 294P and 296P of Adavivaram Revenue Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam and showed the said property physically to them and also showed some registered documents pertaining to the year 1922 in the name of Sanapala Yerukamma and also the subsequent documents and informed them that himself, and A.2 to A.8 are the legal heirs of Yerukamma and they have succeeded the said property. Believing the words of the Petitioner/A.1 and his family members, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu agreed to purchase the said land @ Rs.29,99,999.00 per acre. The petitioners/A.1 to A.7 got executed an un-registered sale agreement on 14/8/2004 in favour of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu, and received an amount of Rs.8,52,000.00 as an advance subject to the condition that the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 have to clear off all the pending encumbrances to Simhachalam Devasthanam and get clearance from the temple authorities and after obtaining clearance by the executants, the purchasers also have to pay certain amounts to VUDA towards layout charges. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu insisted the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 to get clearance from the temple authorities. On 21/8/2004, on the request made by petitioners/A.1 to A.7, an amount of Rs.2,00,000.00 was paid by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu. On the request of the 1st petitioner/A.1, an amount of Rs.9,50,000.00 on 5/9/2004; an amount of Rs.6,00,000.00 on 28/9/2006 and an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 on 3/5/2007 were paid by them to the petitioners/A.1 to A.7. The total amount of Rs.29,02,000.00 was paid by the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu to the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 from the date of the unregistered agreement of sale dtd. 14/8/2004.

(iii) After receipt of the above amounts, there was no information from the 1st petitioner/A.1 regarding clearance from Simhachalam Devasthanam. Whenever they visited the house of the Petitioner/A.1, all the accused were found absconding. Then the 2nd respondent/de facto complaint got a doubt as to whether the subject land belongs to Simhachalam Devasthanam or to the accused and whether the accused paid the amount to get clearance from Devasthanam. On enquiry, they came to know that either the 1st petitioner/A.1 or any of his family members are having no right or title over the said land and the entire land belongs to Simhachalam Devasthanam and that the said Devasthanam had never issued any proceedings in R.C.No.C1/7770/89, dtd. 25/7/1996, in favour of the 1st petitioner/A.1. Then, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and L.W.2-Muddana Ranganayakulu demanded the petitioners/A.1 to A.7 to refund the amount paid by them for which, the accused warned them with dire consequences. The Petitioners/A.1 to A.7 in collusion and with a deceptive intention at the incepti