ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused 1 to 4 in C.C.No.4429 of 2021 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar for the offences under Sections 420, 441, 447, 427, 506 r/w 120-B of IPC.

2. The grievance of the 2nd respondent is that he had purchased open plots in Sy.No.8 and 9, situated at Chengicherla village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District from R.Satyanarayana on 12.05.2014 by way of registered sale document. Further the plots originally belonged to one Smt. Bharathi Rao. The Land Reforms Tribunal vide C.C.No.1627/E/75 declared that she is the holder of land admeasuring Acs.8.09 guntas.

3. The 2nd respondent visited the plots and he found that one Srinivas Goud (A4) illegally encroached upon the plots by constructing a wall and gate was also erected. When questioned, the said Srinivas Goud (A4) informed that he purchased Acs.2.00 from B.Rudramma rep. by her GPA holder R.Venkateshwar Goud on 08.04.2005. The 2nd respondent came to know that the 1st petitioner created unregistered agreements dated 12.12.1979 stating that she has purchased the land from Bharathi Rao from their respective unregistered GPA holders. According to the complaint, the 1st petitioner and others have fabricated unregistered documents and started selling plots. The 1st petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.10031 of 2019 questioning the notice dated 03.05.2019 of the HMDA stating that development layout from HMDA was not obtained and the layout was unauthorized. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition directed the concerned authorities to examine the reply given by the 1st petitioner and others.

4. The Commissioner, Boduppal Municipal Corporation addressed a letter dated 26.09.2020 asking the 1st petitioner and others to approach the Court regarding the ownership of plots. The said letter itself indicates that the petitioners had fabricated documents according to the 2nd respondent.

5. According to the 2nd respondent on 09.10.2020, Srinivas Goud (A4) along with henchmen obstructed the 2nd respondent from entering into his plot and when questioned, they attacked him. For the reason of encroachment by the petitioners herein, police were requested to take criminal action. However, they refused, for which reason, the 2nd respondent approached the Court and filed private complaint. On reference by the Magistrate, the police investigated the case and found that the 1st petitioner created unregistered agreement dated 12.12.1979 alleging that she has purchased the land from K.Bharathi Rao and V.Padmini Devi and validated the documents under Section 5-A of Records of Rights and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 vide proceedings in File No.ROR/5-A/34/89 with the help of A4. In the year 2002, 1st Petitioner/A1 gave GPA to A4 vide registered document No.6919 of 2002 to an extent of Acs.2.00. The 1st petitioner also gave GPA to A2 to the extent of Acs.2.00 vide document No.6918 of 2002. Similarly, A1 also gave registered GPA vide document No.5171/2005 to an extent of Acs.4.17 guntas. Accordingly, police filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offences mentioned supra.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the property and the question of cheating or otherwise does not arise. The 2nd respondent had deliberately purchased the property though he has no right and trying to pressurize the petitioners by filing false criminal complaint. The police had earlier registered two crimes which are Cr.No.579 of 2004 and Crime No.447 of 2006 and also Crime No.666 of 2016 in respect of the very same property and all the crimes were closed as civil in nature.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if there is any dispute, it is purely civil in nature. It is for the civil Court to decide whether the petitioners have right over the property or not and the police cannot file