The court held that allegations of fraud and forgery in a land transaction were insufficient to establish a prima facie criminal case, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal matters.

COMMON ORDER:

These Petitions are filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.326 of 2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad at Nampally, in taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 488, 478, 467 , 472 read with Section 34 of IPC .

2. The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint stating that he was an ENT Specialist and completed his Post Graduation from All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi and worked for some time at Delhi and shifted to Hyderabad and started a clinic and hospital at Panjagutta, Hyderabad in the name and style of “Asian ENT Care Center”. He gained good reputation in his profession. He was also a visiting doctor at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. He got acquainted with A2, who was a doctor at NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. A2 and A3 visited his clinic at Panjagutta and tried to convince him to purchase a land at Maheswaram Mandal stating that the said land belonged to their known persons and convinced the complainant to invest money. The complainant refused to purchase the same stating that he was not having sufficient amount to pay. But, A2 and A3 continuously persuaded and pressurized him to purchase the land for a period of three months. Finally, they suggested that they were going to register the property through A4 and A5, who were the land owners and asked him to pay the consideration amount after registration and that they would pay the registration amount of the document and hand over the registered document. Believing them, the complainant finally agreed to do so. A2 and A3 handed over the registered document bearing No. 1040 of 2011 dated 16-04-2011 for an extent of Ac.2-00 in survey No. 650 executed by A4 and A5. Another document was also got executed by A1 in favour of the complainant and his mother vide Doc.No.2527/2011 dated 20-07-2011. The complainant expressed his willingness to visit the Sub- Registrar Office at the time of registration of the documents. A1 to A3 suggested that as he was a busy doctor, he did not have to attend the Sub- Registrar Office and that they would take substitute steps for getting registration.

2.1. The complainant further submitted that A1 to A3 had shown the agricultural land to him and after handing over the original documents started demanding the complainant to pay the amount. The complainant paid a total amount of Rs.41,00,000/- including expenditure of registration. Out of Rs.41,00,000/-, the complainant paid some amounts through account payee cheques in the name of the accused No. 1, some of the amounts paid through self cheques, some of the amounts by way of cash to A1 to A3. For the payment made through cash, the complainant had not taken any receipt as the amounts received by the accused was reflected in the sale deeds. Altogether A1 to A3 received Rs 41,00,000/- from the complainant.

2.2. He further submitted that as per the condition before execution of the sale deed A1 to A3 had to conduct the survey with their money and fix the boundaries. Accordingly, the complainant was pursuing A1 to A3 to get the survey done and to fix the boundaries for the land shown to him, but A1 to A3 dragged the matter and finally stated that they would get the survey done, fix the boundaries and hand over the land in the first week of August, 2014. The complainant kept quiet till August, 2014. Thereafter the complainant once again asked A1 to A3 to get the survey done, fix the boundaries and hand over the possession of the land. As they were postponing the matter, he decided to check the particulars of the land be