IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained when the underlying dispute is civil in nature, and such cases should be quashed to prevent abuse of the legal process.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint on the file of the III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Tirupati against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have committed offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 506, 120(B) of the IPC. The said private complaint was referred to Police and after due investigation the crime was registered vide Crime No.178 of 2014 dated 26.06.2014. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.205 of 2015, which is under challenge before this Court.

2. The case of the 2nd respondent is that on 06.11.2012 he has purchased a property situated in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue village accounts of Ullipatteda of M.R.Palle Panchayat admeasuring an extent of 302.69 square yards for a valid consideration of Rs.16,65,000/- from his lawful vendors namely Bachala Jayamma, W/o Peddamuni Reddy, B. Rojamba, W/o B. Yogananda Reddy, B. Mukhesh Reddy, S/o B. Rojamba, B. Lakshman Reddy, S/o B. Pedda Muni Reddy, B. Devi, W/o B. Lakshman Reddy, B. Madhusekhar Reddy, S/o B. Jayamma, B. Manjula, W/o B. Madhusekhar Reddy under a registered sale deed, vide document No.5412 of 2012, dated 06.11.2012 at S.R.O., Tirupati Urban.

3. Originally, the said property belonged to one B. Pedda Muni Reddy, S/o P. Muni Reddy, who became the owners of the land in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue Village of an extent of Ac.1.75 cents as per compromise decree in O.S.No.7 of 1973 on the file of the Hon’ble Sub-Court, Tirupati by the Hathiramji Mutt. The then Assistant Commissioner of Hathiramji Mutt vide proceedings in Roc.No.1509/1981-A, dated 05.05.1983 issued directions to the Tahsildar, Chandragiri to transfer the pattas in the name of the enjoyers. As per the said proceedings, B. Pedda Muni Reddy being one of the enjoyer was granted a patta in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue Village accounts for an extent of Ac.1.75 cents situated at Ullipatteda. By virtue of the said patta the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy became the absolute owner and has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property after duly taking possession of the same. During his lifetime, the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy made alienations and settlements by exercising his absolute rights over the said land.

4. After the demise of the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy, on 06.11.2012 his legal heirs i.e., B. Jayamma, W/o B. Pedda Muni Reddy having succeeded and in possession and enjoyment of the same executed a registered sale deed pertaining to the schedule mentioned property i.e., in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue Village accounts of Ullipatteda area for an extent of 302.69 square yards for an amount of Rs.16,65,000/- by duly delivering the possession on the same day to the complainant. While the matter being so, the complainant i.e., the 2nd respondent herein came to know that the petitioners herein having colluded together have created a sham and fraudulent document as if it was executed by the son of B. Pedda Muni Reddy by name B. Muni Reddy in favour of Mr. M. Venkata Subba Reddy/the 1st petitioner herein on 30.09.1991 vide document No.4111 of 1991 pertaining to the property situated in Sy.No.290 of Tirupati Revenue village accounts for an extent of 0.11 cents. The 1st petitioner has thereafter fabricated the gift deed dated 25.01.1999 vide document No.255 of 1999 in favour of his daughter i.e., the 2nd petitioner herein. The complaint of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant is that the said B. Pedda Muni Reddy do not have any sons in the name of Mr. B. Muni Reddy and the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 herein have tried to occupy the property of the complainant by creating the documents by impersonating some unknown person in the name of B. Muni Reddy.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 673, wherein under similar circumstances a suit has been filed on the basis of the fabricated documents a