ORDER :

1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.312 of 2022 on the file of XX Metropolitan Magistrate, at Medchal, Cyberabad.

2. The 2nd petitioner filed a complaint stating that he executed registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of A1 on 09.12.2014 for a consideration of Rs.80.00 lakhs in respect of land admeasuring Acs.1.11 gts in Sy.No.35, situated at Thumkunta village. At the time of registration of the document, the petitioners allegedly shown two DDs Rs.40.00 lakhs in favor of the 2nd respondent. Believing the accused, the 2nd respondent registered the document. However, the 2nd respondent found that the said DDs which were shown to have obtained in his favour for Rs.40 lakhs each were in fact taken for an amount of Rs.400/- and the said DDS were fabricated as Rs.40.00 lakhs. For the said reason, the petitioners have cheated the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, complaint was filed and petitioners were charge4 sheeted for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 471, 474 r/w 34 IPC and 506 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the said registered document was in the year 2014 and the present complaint is filed with a delay of eight years making false allegations. He further submits that as seen from the said document No.3786 of 2014 dated 09.12.2014, it is a registered document and it is mentioned in the document that total consideration of Rs.25,50,000/- was already received. In the said circumstances, the allegation that Rs.80.00 lakhs DD’s were shown and got the document registered in their favour cannot be accepted. Since there is steep increase in the prices of land, false complaint is made to extract money from the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty and another v. State of West Bengal, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 67 and argued that when the transactions are predominantly civil in nature, when it is given a cloak of criminal offence, the same has to be quashed. Criminal proceedings cannot be filed to intimidate the parties.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that the 2nd respondent and petitioners are all closely related. For the said reason, the 2nd respondent registered the land in favour of 1st and 2nd petitioners with an understanding that Rs.80.00 lakhs would be given and the value shown in the document is government value. Having shown the said DDs for Rs.80.00 lakhs the said DDs were not handed over prior to registration stating that they would be handed over after registration. After registration, the DD’s were not given. In the said circumstances, civil suit in O.S.No.351 of 2018 was filed for cancellation of the agreement of sale-cum-GPA executed in favour of the 1st petitioner and the same was decreed in favour of the 2nd respondent. The II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri while passing orders in O.S.No.351 of 2018 cancelled the document executed in favour of petitioners 1 and 2. Further, the DDs which were produced by the 1st and 2nd petitioners were enquired during investigation and the Bank has intimated the police that the said bankers cheques were issued for Rs.400/- and not Rs.40.00 lakhs.

6. Having perused the record, the document in question is agreement of sale-cum-GPA with possession executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of A1 which is document No.3786 of 2014. A1 thereafter executed sale deed in favour of A2, who is his brother, which is document No.1370 of 2016, dated 12.05.2016. The allegation of the 2nd respondent is that said document was executed when two DDs for Rs.40.00 lakhs each were shown to him and believing them, 2nd respondent registered the property. The police, during the course of investigation examined the Officer of the State Bank of Hyderabad and DDs bearing Nos.600017232740 and 600017232741 and according to investigation, it was informe