THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.9865 of 2015

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash Crime No. 85 of 2015 dated 22.03.2015, on the file of the Mancherial Police Station, Mancherial District, wherein the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 432, 424, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are briefly stated as under:—

2.1. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the property through a registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3832 of 2011, dated 11.05.2011, from the original owners, G.Hanumantha Rao and others, by paying valuable sale consideration. Since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, and their names have been mutated in the revenue records. Pattadar passbooks and title deeds were also issued in their favour. While things stood thus, respondent No. 3 filed a complaint on 22.03.2015 stating that he had purchased the property from the protected tenant through an Agreement of Sale dated 28.09.2006. It was alleged that the vendors of the petitioners had no semblance of right, interest, or title over the property while executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioners on 11.05.2011. Based on the said complaint, Crime No. 85 of 2015 was registered. 3. Heard Sri A. Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri B. Sreedhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2; and Sri A. Suresh, learned counsel representing Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and that they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 432, 424, and 506 of the IPC are not attracted against the petitioners, as the nature of the allegations made therein is purely civil in nature. He further submits that respondent No. 3 had earlier filed a suit in O.S. No. 188 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, in respect of the very same property, seeking a decree for perpetual injunction, and the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16.03.2025. He further submits that respondent No 3 filed a comprehensive suit in O.S. No. 34 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial, seeking specific performance of the contract of agreement of sale dated 20.09.2006 by directing defendant Nos. 1 to 3 therein to execute a registered sale deed in his favour. He also sought a declaration that the registered sale deeds bearing Document Nos. 3832 of 2011 and 5299 of 2011, dated 11.05.2011 and 18.06.2011 respectively, executed by defendant Nos. 4 to 9 therein, together with the subsequent revenue entries made in favour of defendant Nos. 10 to 12 therein, are null and void and not binding on him. He sought a decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. 10 to 12 therein from alienating the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on 30.06.2025. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law and is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the petitioners and their vendors have colluded with each other and are claiming rights over the property on the basis of the registered sale deed bearing Document No. 3832 of 2011, dated

11.05.2011. It is submitted that, admittedly, the vendors of the petitioners had no semblance of rights over the subject property to execute the said sale deed. The petitioners and their vendor