THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.6458 of 2023

ORDER

This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2, 5 and 6, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.490 of 2021 on the file of the XVII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506, 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’).

2. Heard Sri T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Police Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. The complainant’s uncle, namely D.V. Yadagiri, purchased land to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy. No.181/A of Kundhanpally Village from M. Sathyanarayana, under a General Power of Attorney, vide Document No.5078 of 2012 dated 17.04.2012. Subsequently, on 30.03.2013, the complainant purchased the same land from D.V. Yadagiri, vide Document No.2103/2013. Accused No.1, who is the son of Sathyanarayana, was cited as a witness. Since then, the complainant has been in physical possession of the said land, and his name was also mutated in the revenue records, and a passbook was issued in his favour.

3.2 It is further averred that in 2015, the said Sathyanarayana’s son, Prabhakar, filed O.S. No.1040 of 2015 before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, seeking cancellation of the sale deed and perpetual injunction, by forging the signature of his father, in collusion with accused Nos.2 to 6, with an intention to grab the property. While accused No.5 and others were erecting stone pillars with fencing wire on the complainant’s plot, the complainant’s husband went there upon learning of the same. At that time, accused No.5 demanded Rs.10 lakhs, failing which accused No.1 would again file a case.

3.3 It is also averred that on 11.07.2018, the said suit was dismissed, subsequently an appeal was preferred by accused No.1 and the same is pending. Meanwhile, the complainant applied for Rythu Bandhu and a patta passbook, but accused Nos.1 to 6 opposed the same and threatened the complainant and her husband. At the same time, accused No.1 got the civil case reopened by impleading his mother. He forged signatures and filed a case to resist the complainant’s claim and to grab the property. Further, accused No.1 obtained a passbook for Ac.2.14 guntas instead of Ac.2.00 guntas, for his illegal gain and to cause monetary loss to the complainant. Thus, accused Nos.1 to 6 are liable for the offences mentioned above.

4. Submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioners:

4.1 Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in the present case. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, respondent No.2 had purchased the property to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Sy.No.181/A through registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013 from her father-in-law namely D.V.Yadagiri, who is the registered GPA holder of original owner namely M.Sathyanarayana. Accused No.1, who is none other than the son of M.Sathyanarayana, forged the signatures of his father and filed suit in O.S. No.1040 of 2015 seeking cancellation of registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013 in collusion with the petitioners. The entire allegations are levelled against accused No.1 only. Hence, the ingredients of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 506, and 120- B IPC, as well as Section 156(3) CrPC, are not attracted against the petitioners.

4.2 He further submitted that M.Sathyanarayana filed suit on 23.09.2015 and he died on 10.04.2018. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on 05.08.2019 after a lapse of n