The court determined that insufficient evidence existed for charges under Sections 468 and 471, but allowed proceedings under Section 420 IPC due to the potential for fraudulent intent in obtaining property.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/A1 in CC No.784 of 2016 of Banjara Hills Police Station, which is registered for the offence under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 IPC.

2. The facts, as can be gathered from the record would go to show that the de facto complainant/respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner and another have committed the offence under Sections 403 , 418, 420, 464 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The de facto complainant is the absolute owner and possessor of Flat Nos.G1 and G2 admeasuring 2,500 Square feet alongwith undivided share to an extent of 108.6 Square yards situated in ground floor of Lacasa Apartments bearing Premises No. 8-2-467/4/A/1, Road No.5, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The de facto complainant has let out the said property to her tenant by name Mirza Anwar Baig and he has been residing in the said premises as a tenant and paying the rents regularly since 2007 onwards. Recently, the officials of Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur alongwith others visited the said house unlawfully and made an attempt to dispossess the tenant. On enquiry, the de facto complainant came to know that a fraud was committed against her and her property in the year 2010 as the family of the de facto complainant was in need of Rs.8 lakhs, she has borrowed the same from the petitioner, who claims himself to be a representative of UMA associates. At the time of advancing the loan, the petitioner has obtained original documents of the property and under the guise of mortgage deed, he got executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA (for short "AGPA") with possession falsely by misleading the complainant stating that the same is required for security purpose. The de facto complainant has discovered the said fraud recently when the bank officials approached her flat. Basing on the said false agreement of sale-cum-GPA, dated 23.03.2010, the accused have colluded each other and brought into existence a false sale deed dated 28.09.2010 in respect of the said property without possession. They have also borrowed loan from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur by mortgaging the said property. When the accused have committed default in repayment of loan, the bank has initiated action for recovery of the loan. The bank officials have advanced the loan without verifying the details and without enquiring into as to whom the property belongs to. The property even in the GHMC, Electricity and Water Departments stands in the name of the de facto complainant and the tenant has been paying rent directly to the de facto complainant.

3. The de facto complainant has approached the Police, Banjara Hills on 06.10.2015. Since they have not registered the complaint, a petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has been filed before the Court. On considering the complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 IPC and numbered the same as CC No.784 of 2016 and summons were issued. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/A1 has filed this quash petition on the following grounds.

4. The de facto complainant has not initiated any proceedings in the Civil Court for cancellation of AGPA. Therefore, the stand taken by her is incorrect. The de facto complainant has admittedly executed AGPA and therefore, it is complete in all respects thereby the property can be transferred to third parties. There are no ingredients to show in the complaint that the petitioner/A1 has committed offence punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. There are also no ingredients of offence under