IMPORTANT POINT
Allegations of forgery and cheating under IPC Sections 467, 468, and 420 were not substantiated, necessitating resolution of boundary disputes in civil court.

ORDER :

K. Sujana, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.09 of 2023 of Genome Valley Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences registered against the petitioners are under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘I.P.C’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Parvathipuram Nagaiah, owned Ac.2.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.311, later Machani Madhusudhan (petitioner No.2/A.2) had purchased Ac.0.20 guntas of land from Nagaiah in Sy.No.311/A through a registered document bearing No.9929 of 2023 on 15.11.2003 and he sold entire Ac.0.20 guntas of land to M. Govardhan Reddy and M. Pulla Reddy vide registered document bearing No.7252 of 2024 on 09.07.2004. In the year 2021, M. Goverdhan Reddy sold his half share of land i.e., Ac.0.10 guntas to Samarth Gupta through sale deed dated 25.06.2021. That Mr. R. Rajaratnam has got Special Power of Attorney on 07.07.2021 from Samarth Gupta to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas which was later registered in the name of his brother R. Sree Ramkumar i.e., the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The petitioner No.3 who is A.3, is the wife of petitioner No.2, had also purchased Ac.1.10 guntas out of remaining extent of land from Nagaiah in Sy.No.311/B in the year 2004 through a registered document. The petitioner No.3 gifted Ac.00.21½ guntas to her son who is petitioner No.1 by showing wrong boundaries in which the land of Ac.0.20 guntas of Pulla Reddy and R. Ram Kumar exist. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 in collusion with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 sold to his neighbor Badri Pujitha an extent of Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.311/B with boundaries of Samarth Gupta as if it belongs to him instead of his gifted property. Stating so, a complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from a plain reading of the complaint it is seen that no case is made out against petitioners for the alleged offences. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is none other than the brother of Raja Ratnam who is bent upon to grab the land of petitioners. The said Raja Ratnam filed a complaint before the Police, Shamirpet Police Station on 07.08.2021 in Cr.No.429 of 2021 for the offences under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C, against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 alleging that they have sold the land which is not in existence and after thorough investigation, the police filed report stating as lack of evidence. Subsequently, Raja Ratnam also filed another complaint in Cr.No.447 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 461 of I.P.C, before the Shamirpet Police Station to take action against petitioner No.2 for interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.01.0 guntas of land and also for execution of false sale deed in favour of P. Rajaiah and P. Mallaiah without any right. After investigation the police have issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C, notice, and petitioner No.2 had submitted a detailed reply. He further contended that petitioner No.1 sold Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.311/B of Kolthur Village, Muduchintalapally, Medchal Malkajgiri District to Badri Pujitha with distorted boundaries and if at all there is any grievance it would be for Badri Pujitha but not to the 2nd respondent and he has no right to initiate criminal proceedings.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (2) ALD (Crl) 775 (SC). He further submitted that this case is filed only to harass the petitioners and there are no grounds to proc