THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3810 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.293 of 2020, on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, registered for the

offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

for respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a telugu written complaint on 15.06.2019 before the Kothagudem-I Town Police Station alleging that he has purchased an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-03 guntas in Sy.No.294/A and 295/A situated at Old Kothagudem vide registered sale deed bearing No.148/2006 for valuable consideration. Accordingly, the said property has been delivered and the defacto complainant has been in the possession and enjoyment of the said property till the present complaint has been filed. It is further alleged that the said property has been mutated in the revenue records and accordingly, pattadar passbooks were issued and the

name of the defacto complainant has been reflected in the pahanis. While so, one Venkata Satya Varaprasad tried to occupy the above said land of the defacto complainant stating that he had purchased the said land through online auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Court, Hyderabad. Immediately, the defacto complainant filed a petition and the same was dismissed. Challenging the same, a writ petition vide W.P.No.1751 of 2019 was filed. It is further alleged that the vendor of the defacto complainant i.e., Doctor Inturi Sree Babu colluding with his vendor Eedpuganti Venkata Satya Vara Prasad had sold the disputed land to him concealing the fact that the loan was obtained on the said land and the same was auctioned by the Tribunal, as the loan obtained by A-2 was not repaid. Even the Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar Office does not disclose the said transaction. Accordingly, complaint has been filed, investigation is conducted and as many as 10 witnesses were examined. While the subject matter is pending, the present petition is filed seeking quashment of the said proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein who has been arrayed as A-1 admittedly is the vendor who has sold the subject property to the defacto complainant and had no knowledge about the subject property being mortgaged by A-2 with the Bank. Suppressing the said fact, A-2 had sold the subject property to the petitioner/A-1 and accordingly, the petitioner herein unknowing the fact that the subject property has been mortgaged with Bank by A-2 purchased the said property for valuable consideration from A-2 and thereafter, sold the same to the defacto complainant. The petitioner herein is the bonafide purchaser. He further submits that the complaint has been filed against the petitioner herein after a lapse of 10 years which does not support the limitation act. The petitioner has no role in mortgaging the land to the Bank by A-2. Hence, subjecting the petitioner to the criminal proceedings would amounts to abuse of process of law and accordingly, seeks intervention of this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein.

5. Learned counsel appearing for defacto complainant /respondent No.2 would submit that thorough investigation has been conducted for four long years and accordingly, charge sheet was laid. As many as 10 witnesses were brought on the Memo of evidence and they need to be examined by the trial Court. He further submits that the petitioner herein/A-1 colluding with A-2 had sold the property to the defacto complainant suppressing the fact that the said property has