Serious allegations in criminal cases require a trial, while vague claims against some petitioners may lead to quashing of proceedings.

ORDER :

K. SUJANA, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioners/accused Nos.1, 4 and 5 to quash the proceedings against them in Cr.No.68 of 2021 of Amarchintha Police Station, Wanaparthy District. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 409 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B r/w. Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short the ‘IPC’).

2. The facts of the case are that defacto complainant/2nd respondent gave complaint to the police stating that he purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac.8.04 guntas in Amarchintha Village, out of which Ac.6.00 was purchased from petitioner No.3, vide registered document No.6961/2009 and he is in exclusive possession of the property. He also planted 350 mango trees and erected fencing around the land. In the year 2019, the 2nd respondent appointed the first petitioner as his GPA holder to look after his properties. On 15.07.2019, at the request of first petitioner, the 2^nd respondent transferred Rs.2 lakhs to his Axis Bank account and on 05.08.2019, Rs.10 lakhs was transferred to the same account to purchase link road to his agricultural land in his name, but the first petitioner got registered the link road in his name by spending Rs.8 lakhs with a fraudulent intention and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of his property. The 2^nd respondent further stated that the first petitioner without his knowledge leased his mango garden for an amount of Rs.6 lakhs. Later he came to know that the first petitioner colluded with other persons and created fake sale deed, agreement on his name and forged his signatures on the sale deed. As such, he filed complaint to take necessary action. Basing on the said complaint, the police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 5. Accused No.1 is petitioner No.1 and accused Nos.4 and 5 are petitioners 2 and 3.

3. Heard Sri M. Saroj Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations against the petitioners are false and incorrect. In fact petitioners did not commit any offence. The 2^nd respondent has entered into an agreement of sale dated 07.07.2019 and agreed to sell the land in Sy.Nos.539/3, 533/2, 533/1, 539/3 and 539 to an extent of Ac.11.37 guntas @ Rs.12,50,000/- per acre and executed an agreement of sale in favour of first petitioner in the presence of elders and villagers. On the date of agreement of sale itself, the first petitioner paid an amount of Rs.15 Lakhs, but he is not the agent of 2^nd respondent. The first petitioner is not related to him except having acquaintance with him through one Srikar who is a common friend of first petitioner and 2^nd respondent. The first petitioner has sent Rs.16 Lakhs through transfer, but after couple of days, the 2^nd respondent has retransferred the same without any reason and he also filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, vide O.S.No.11 of 2021 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Gadwal and he also filed original agreement of sale and pattadar pass book in the said suit, as such, the matter is totally civil in nature.

5. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations in the complaint clearly show that this criminal case is filed to settle the civil disputes. Earlier petitioners filed Crl.P.No.7031 of 2021. Later, the 2^nd respondent agreed for compromise, as such, the same was withdrawn. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent did not come forward. As such, he filed the present petition