Criminal proceedings can coexist with civil disputes, and the transfer of investigation is lawful under judicial precedents.

ORDER :

(Sujana Kalasikam, J.)

1. Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.

2. These Criminal Petitions are 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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 in Crime No.99 of 2015 of Mir Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 506, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant, who is one and the same in both the cases, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C before the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad stating that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing No.12-2-64, admeasuring 152.9 square yards, situated at Muradnagar, Hyderabad. He purchased the said property by virtue of registered sale deed for a valuable sale consideration from its owners. On 18.12.2012, when accused Nos. 1 to 3 approached respondent No.2 and offered to purchase the said property at a low price, the same was refused by him, as such, accused Nos. 1 to 3 interfered with the possession in and over the property. Due to which, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.2941 of 2012 before the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad with all original documents and the Court below granted interim injunction in his favour. Later, the accused violated the orders of the Court below and dispossessed respondent No.2 and beat them, as a result, respondent No.2 and his brother sustained injuries. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 3 with the help of anti social elements trespassed into the subject premises, for which, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the Asifnagar Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.56 of 2013 against accused Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.582 of 2013.

4. Furthermore, accused Nos. 1 to 3 appeared before the Court below and filed counter and written statement in the above suit along with forged and fabricated documents with an intention to grab the subject property. It is further stated that the accused mislead the Court below by filing wrong translations of the documents fabricated and forged in Urdu to English and also created the documents by giving the house address of respondent No.2 and obtained Aadhar cards, Ration card, Gas Connection etc. On receipt of the said information, respondent No.2 approached the concerned authorities and cancelled all the above said documents. Therefore, the accused have committed heinous offences and requested the Court below to take necessary action.

5. Basing on the said Complaint, the case was referred to the concerned Police and they registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2015 of Mir Chowk Police Station, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said complaint, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Petitions to quash the proceedings against them.

6. Heard Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Sri P. Rana Kamalasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially the case was referred to Mir Chowk Police Station and later investigation was done by Mooghalpura Police. He further submitted that when the matter is referred to a particular Police Station for investigation, without permission of the Court, the file cannot be transferred to any other Court. Therefore, the investigation done by the Police is null and void.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and o