The court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash criminal proceedings if they amount to an abuse of the process of the court or if quashing the proceedings would serve the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. - In this Criminal Petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/A.1 seeks to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.469 of 2012 on the file of the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati for the offence under Ss. 420 and 423 read with 34 IPC.

2. The private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein was referred to the Police by the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C for investigation and the same was registered by Tiruchanur Police, Tirupati Urban as a case in Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offence under Ss. 420 and 423 read with 34 IPC. The said crime was investigated and eventually, having found prima facie evidence against the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 to A.5 regarding their complicity in commission of the said offences, the investigating officer has filed a charge sheet in the trial Court and the same was numbered as C.C.No.469 of 2012 which is now pending trial before the trial Court.

3. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/A.1; Sri Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent/State and Sri T.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant.

4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that, the plot in an extent of 224 square yards as two items situated in Sy.No.33/2A of Avilala Village accounts, originally belongs to A.5- B.Ramanjineyulu and he sold the said property to the petitioner/A.1 under a registered sale deed dtd. 7/10/2005. In turn, the petitioner/A.1 executed an Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dtd. 21/4/2007 in favour of A.2 authorizing him to deal with the said property and subsequently, A.2 sold the same to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant on 10/4/2008 under a sale deed vide Doc.No.1412 of 2008 by receiving the sale consideration of Rs.12, 30, 000.00(the Government Value of Rs.3, 70, 000.00). Thereafter, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant sold the said property to N.Munichandra(LW2) for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.1442 of 2010, dtd. 30/4/2010. When the purchaser N.Munichandra(LW2) entered into the subject property, he came to know that the same was under civil litigation, which is the subject matter of O.S.657 of 2005 filed by L.W.5-N.Satya Prasunamba seeking the relief declaration and permanent injunction against A.5 and others, on the file of the Court of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. A.5, who is the vendor of A.1, was the 4th defendant in the said suit. On that, L.W.2(N.Munichandra) issued a notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant about the fraud committed by them and in turn, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant approached A.1 to A.4 requesting them to return the sale consideration paid by him, but they did not respond. As such, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati, the same was forwarded to Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati Urban for investigation. The said crime was investigated, and eventually having found prima facie evidence against the petitioner/A.1 and A.2 to A.5 regarding their complicity in commission of the said offence and causing loss of Rs.12, 30, 000.00 to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant, the charge sheet was filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.1 would submit that A.5-B.Ramanjineyulu sold the subject property to the petitioner/A.1 by suppressing the fact of pendency of the civil litigation, though he was a party to the said suit proceedings as 4th defendant in a suit in O.S.No.657 of 2005 filed by N.Satya Prasunamba(L.W.5) for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed in her favour and subsequent to his purchase, many transactions were made in between A.2, 2nd respondent/de facto complainant and L.W.2(N.Mmunichandra).

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/A.1