THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO.32818 OF 2016

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No. 234 of 2016 on the file of P.S. Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 447, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’); Section 4 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1988; and Section 25(1-B)

of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. Heard Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3; and Sri B.Balamukunda Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 13.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased land admeasuring Ac.14-30 guntas in Sy. No.17 and Ac.5-35 guntas in Sy. No.18, situated at Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1809 of 2011, dated 13.05.2011, from the unofficial respondents, by paying valuable sale consideration. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Thereafter, the petitioner sold the said property to one Sri B. Ravi Teja by executing a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.353 of 2012, dated 02.02.2012, after receiving the agreed sale consideration.

4. He further submitted that the petitioner lodged a complaint against one Sri Nawab and others for interfering with his land admeasuring Ac.38-00 guntas in Sy. Nos. 46 and 47, situated at Kothapeta Village, Mahboobnagar District. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.496 of 2016 was registered against Nawab and others for offences punishable under Sections 384 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. While the said crime was pending, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 17.09.2016 falsely alleging that the petitioner had not paid the total sale consideration. On the other hand, he alienated the property by executing a registered Sale Deed, dated 02.02.2012, in favour of Sri B. Ravi Teja and when he demanded to pay the balance sale consideration, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences.

5. Learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the nature of the allegations made in the complaint is purely civil in nature and respondent No.3 sought cancellation of the registered Sale Deed said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2011. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 447, and 506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1988, do not attract, as the petitioner had purchased the property by paying the valuable sale consideration. He also submitted that even assuming that any amount remains unpaid by the petitioner, respondent No.3 ought to have filed a suit before the competent Civil Court. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submitted that respondent No.3 is not interested in prosecuting the proceedings against the petitioner. Respondent No.3 and his family members approached respondent No.2 – Police Station and informed that they wish to withdraw the complaint lodged against the petitioner, and accordingly requested respondent No.2 to drop the proceedings.

7. Sri B.Balamukunda Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 13, also submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 13 were also not interested to prosecute the case against the petitioner.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court on 26.09.2016, the Investigating Officers have not proceeded with the investigation.

9