The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in Crime No.291/2015,

registered for offences punishable under Sections 420,

465 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Heard

Sri.S.Mahesh,

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner,

Smt.K.P.Yashodha,

learned

HCGP

for

respondent

No.1

and

Sri.K.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent

No.2.

3.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

3

The

petitioner

is

the

wife

of

one

Sri.L.R.Raviprakash, who owns several lands in the area

in which the subject land or the disputed land is

situated. The subject land was purchased by the

petitioner in the year 2002 on 27.03.2002. Since then

the petitioner was in possession of the said land. In the

year

2015,

the

second

respondent/complainant

claiming to be the grand son of one Sri.R.Krishnareddy,

the vendor of the petitioner, registers a complaint on

14.10.2015 alleging that the said land is sold by

R.Krishnareddy, who had by then died. According to the

death certificate, which is appended to the objections,

the said R.Krishnareddy had died in the year 1980 and

therefore, it a case of impersonation, was alleged in the

complaint by the complainant. The moment complaint

is registered, the petitioner has knocked the doors of

this Court, in the subject petition. The case having

4

been entertained, further proceedings/investigation has

been stayed by this Court.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner

Sri.S.Mahesh,

would

submit

that

the

petitioner is an innocent purchaser from the hands of

one R.Krishnareddy, whether R.Krishnareddy had died

by then or not, was not what the petitioner had known

at the time when the sale took place. As all the

documents that were placed for sale were showing the

name of R.Krishnareddy and if at all any prosecution

has to be instituted, it should be against the vendor.

The petitioner is in possession of the property from

27.03.2002 and the complainant, who claims to be the

grand

son

registers

the

complaint

of

such

impersonation in the year 2015.

5.

On the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for the complainant would submit that

impersonation is very clear as R.Krishnareddy died in

5

the year 1980 and sale deed is executed on 27.03.2002

to knock off the property belonging to the petitioner. The

complainant claims that he was not aware of the sale,

as he all around the State in several employments and

suddenly sprung into action in the year 2015, when he

came to know that R.Krishnareddy had died and the

property was sold in favour of the petitioner, in the year

2002. The learned counsel would further submit that it

is a matter of investigation that the petitioner has to

later come out clean as impersonation is on the face of

it found in the case at hand.

6.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

contentions of respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

7.

The afore-quoted fact of sale on 27.03.2002

is not in dispute. The offences alleged are ones

punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC.

6

The provision of law, Section 420 of IPC reads as

follows:

“420.

Cheating

and

dishonestly

inducing delivery of property.—Whoever

cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the

person deceived to deliver any property to

any person, or to make, alter or destroy the

whole or any part of a valuable security, or

anything which is signed or sealed, and

which is capable of being converted into a

valuable security, shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extend to seven years, and shall

also be liable to fine.”

Section 420 would not get attracted in the case at

hand, as the petitioner has not induced any victim to

part with the property with a dishonest intention. In

fact, the petitioner is a purchaser of the property from

the hands of one R.Krishnareddy, who according to the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent has been

7

impersonated. The