IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mere allegations without sufficient evidence do not constitute a criminal offense, allowing for quashing of FIRs to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

As the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. The main grievance in all these writ petitions are that they have offered some properties for sale by Sri Mahaboob Basha and others, being the legal heirs of Sri Syed Alli Peera S/o Sameera Hussain Shah, the original owner of the property. After verifying the title of the properties with revenue authorities and having been satisfied with their vendors, title over the said property, the petitioners have paid different amounts as sale consideration and got executed sale deeds transferring the right and title over the said land in favour of the petitioners. The documents were presented before the Sub Registrar duly paying necessary stamp duty and registration fee. Since the Sub Registrar was not releasing the documents, the vendors of the petitioners have filed WP No.8596 of 2015 before this Court challenging the said inaction. The same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.01.2016.

It is further stated that the impugned complaint was lodged by the 4th respondent on 21.02.2016 stating that the land mentioned herein above was handed over by the Magunta Layout Trust to the Municipal Corporation and since then the same is under their possession. In the light of the complaint given by 4th respondent, 3rd respondent started enquiry and has been pressurizing the petitioners to present themselves in the police station despite the fact that the 4th respondent has not named anybody in his complaint. The transaction referred to in the complaint dated 19.02.2016, while the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners by their vendors are dated 10.03.2015 which is one year prior to the date of incident referred to in the complaint. The 3rd respondent has unnecessarily troubling the petitioners to be present before him and if the petitioners will be presented themselves they will be arrested. Questioning the action of the respondents’ police, the present writ petitions came to be filed.

3. This Court has granted interim direction in all the writ petitions vide separate orders. In W.P.No.11597 of 2016, this Court vide order, dated 07.04.2016, while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim direction vide WPMP No.14595 of 2016, as under:

“…The complaint made by the Nellore Municipal Corporation, which formed the basis for registration of Crime No.42 of 2016 on the file of Nellore IV Town Police Station, reflects, prima facie, that no ingredients are made out to attract Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. There shall accordingly be interim stay as prayed for.”

4. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Indus Law Firm, learned counsel and Sri V.R.N. Prasanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri T.M.K. Chaitanya, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

5. On hearing, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that , the mere registration of sale deeds in respect of subject properties would not attract the provisions of Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC as the complaint was neither cheated nor has been deprived of property by the said transactions. If at all anyone has a grievance as regard the said transactions, it is the petitioners as they purchased the land bona fide believing the title of the vendors over the said properties. He further submits that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value still they do not constitute an offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 34 IPC, more so, in view of the fact that the allegations are civil in nature. He further submits that the 3rd respondent without even verifying the contents of the complaint has been insisting the petitioners presence and the petitioners are being threatened and intimidated of being arrested. This action of the 3rd respondent is nothing but abuse