ORDER:

The present criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(for short “Cr.P.C.”) seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.59 of 2018, on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali. Where, the police have laid the charge sheet to punish the accused for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “I.P.C.”) and Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioners 1 and 2 herein, are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 3. Accused No. 3 is the son of Accused No.2.

2. Facts in narrow compass stated as follows:

(a) One Komarina Venkateswara Rao, is the original owner of the property bearing document No.149/1996 dated 08.03.1996, situated in an extent of Ac.10.71 cents in Survey Nos.180/2, 180/3 and 182/2 of Dubagunta village, Kaligiri mandal. Accused/A-1-Komarina Satyanarayana Murthy is the brother of K.Venkateswara Rao, who expired on 01.01.2008 and the said K.Venkateswara Rao is the original owner of the property.

(b) AccusedNo.1 impersonated himself as K.Venkateswara Rao and obtained Pattadar Pass-book and title deed in his favour. Later, he impersonated himself as original owner K.Venkateswara Rao and sold away the property to A-2 and A-3, who are the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein. A-1 has sold away the property and registered the document vide document No. 721 of 2013 dated 28.03.2013 at Sub-Registrar Office, Vinjamuru, to the 2nd petitioner herein.

(c) Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that Accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the petitioners herein, are the witnesses in the document bearing document No.149/96 dated 08.03.1996, for the property purchased by the K.Venkateswara Rao and petitioners herein knowing the owner of the property and that is devolved on 3rd respondent herein purchased the property in active collusion with Accused No.1, only to cause loss to the 3rd respondent herein and for wrongful gain.

(d) After the demise of said K.Venkateswara Rao, the implead petitioner/3rd respondent herein-Komarina Subbalakshmi, W/o. late Venkateswara Rao, went to the office of Sub-Registrar for mutation of her name along with her minor children in the place of K.Venkateswara Rao, then she came to the knowledge that A-1 has impersonated himself as K.Venkateswara Rao and sold away the property to A-3.

(e) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar made a complaint to the police to investigate on the matter. Accordingly, the police has investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet. The said charge sheet has been assailed in the present criminal petition, on the ground that Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to lodge a report before the police, as he is not the aggrieved.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would submit that A-2 and A-3 are the attestors of the property, bearing document No.149/1996 dated 08.03.1996, purchased by the original owner K.Venkateswara Rao. They are having knowledge about the purchase of the property by K.Venkateswara Rao and knowing very well they have obtained a sale deed from A-1, in order to cheat the 3rd respondent herein.

4. It has also been laid down in A.R. Antulay v. Ram Das Sriniwas Nayak1, in paragraph 6 that the concept of locus standi is foreign to Indian jurisprudence, and if a cognizable offence has been committed, anyone can put the criminal law in

AIR 1984 SC 718

motion, unless the statute restricts the right to file the FIR to a particular category of persons. The relevant passage reads thus:

“It is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law into motion except where the statute enacting or creating an offence indicates to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, envisages two parallel and independent agencies for taking criminal offences to Court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was not disputed that a private complaint can, not only be filed but can be entertained and proceeded