IMPORTANT POINT
A Magistrate must apply mind and provide reasons when forwarding a complaint for police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the order dated 21.03.2018 of the V Additional Judicial First Class, Magistrate, Tirupathi in CF.No.342/2018 and the consequential registration of FIR No.99 of 2018 on the file of Tiruchanuru Police Station, Tiruchanuru, Chittoor , District for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 417, 418, 420, 447 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) read with 120(B) IPC.

2. The petitioner herein is the accused No.1. Respondent No.2 herein is the defacto complainant. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupathi against the petitioner herein and 36 others stating that the 2nd respondent is the wife of late Anupati Kaleshwar and is a resident of Penukonda; that her husband died on 15.03.2012 leaving behind the 2nd respondent, their minor daughter and her mother in law to succeed to her husband’s estate as Class-I heirs; that one S. Sathyanarayana, D. Lakshminarayana, B. Sreenivasulu represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder i.e. the petitioner herein sold plots (scheduled Nos.1 to 22 mentioned in the complaint) in favour of husband of the 2nd respondent vide two registered sale deeds i.e. Doc.No.4629 and 4630 of 2009, dated 18.11.2009. The complainant further alleged that M/s. Venkateswara Housing Pvt., Ltd., represented by its Managing Director K. Lakshi Narasimha Rao sold plots (scheduled Nos.23 to 62 mentioned in the complaint) in favour of husband of the 2nd respondent vide registered sale deed i.e. Doc.No.4631 of 2009, dated 18.11.2009, in spite of having the knowledge and notice that the managing director of M/s. Venkateswara Housing Pvt., Ltd., has cancelled the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the petitioner herein. From the date of sale of the aforesaid plots in favour of the 2nd respondent’s husband, the husband of the 2nd respondent was inducted into possession and enjoyment. After the death of the complainant’s daughter, the complainant and her daughter are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plots (scheduled Nos.01 to 62 mentioned in the complaint).

3. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.2 is a close associate of the petitioner herein; that upon the demise of the complainant’s husband, with a fraudulent and dishonest intention conspired to cheat the complainant and they have fabricated an agreement of sale in favour of 2nd accused. Though the alienations of the property is in favour of complainants’ late husband are reflected in the encumbrance certificate, even without impleading the complainant and other heirs as party, the accused No.2 in collusion with accused No.1 has filed a suit against accused No.1/petitioner herein, in O.S.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi and obtained an exparte decree; subsequently, the accused No.2 filed E.P.No.9 of 2015 and obtained a sale deed through the process of court. Again, in the exparte proceedings in E.A.No.116 of 2016, the accused No.2 has obtained the delivery of the property; and thereafter both the accused No.1 and 2 conspired and have fabricated nominal sale deeds in favour of accused Nos. 3 to 37. It is further contended that though all the accused have knowledge that if alienation is made even subsequent to the alleged agreement of sale, the subsequent purchasers shall be added as parties to the suit the 2nd accused had failed to add the complainant and other heirs as parties to the suit with a fraudulent intention. The petitioner herein is guilty of committing breach of trust as he has executed sale deed in favour of complainant’s husband with respect to plots (scheduled Nos.1 to 22 mentioned in the complaint).

4. The complainant has further stated that she has filed an application before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi under Order 21 Rule 99 read w