CRLP/6495/2020 of K. Krishna Prasad Vs The State of Telangana on 30 December 2020

ORDER

The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 ofCr.P.C., seeking to quash the Crime No.557 of 2O2O on the file olthe Station House Officer, Ghatkesar Potice Station, RachakondaCommissionerate, registered for the offences punishable underSections 419,42O,427,447,468,471 and 506 IPC read withSection 34 IPC, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as sole accusedtherein.

2. Heard Sri M. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing onbehalf of Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel ior the petitioner/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing forthe first respondent - State. Perused the material placed onrecord.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for theparties, the criminal petition is taken up for hearing through VideoConferencing in the virtual Court today, t.e.,30.12.2020.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner had purchased the subject disputed plots from hisvendor in the year 2003 under a registered document, while thesecond respondent/ de facto complainant is claiming to havepurchased the said plots from AGPA holder of the vendors of thepetitioner on 16.06.2007. The learned counsel would furthersubmit that by the date the second respondent/de factocomplainant claimed to have been purchased the said plots, thepetitioner had in fact sold away the said plots to one Siva Kumaron O5.05,2007. The learned counsel would thus submit that the

document in [favour of ][the ][petitioner ][being ][first ][in ][point ][of ][time']been [executed ][in ][the year 2003 by the vendor ][himself' ][while]having the de facto [complainant ][is ][claiming ][to ][have ][purchased ][the ][same]from AGP holder [of the vendor of ][the petitioner, the ][genuineness of]the document [executed ][in ][favour ][of ][the ][petitioner ][cannot ][be]questioned by the [present ][de ]facto [complainant' ][Il ][at all' ][any]overact of forgery [having been resorted ][to ][by ][the ][petitioner ][for]purchasing the subject [plots ][in ][the year ][2003, the complaint ought]to have been [lodged ][by ][the original ][owner ][/ ][vendor ][of the ][subject]p1ots, and not by [the ][second ][respondent/de ][facto ][complainant ][who]is only a subsequent [purchaser ][from ][AGPA ][holder ][by ][lodging ][a]private comPlaint.

5. On the other [hand, the ][learned ][Additional ][Public ][Prosecutor]would submit that [the ][vendor ][of ][the ][petitioner ][and the ][AGPA]holder from [whom ][the ][second respondent/de ][facto ][complainant]had purchased [the subject plots ][have ][been ][examined ][as ][witnesses]in the above [crime ][registered by the ][respondent ][authority ][upon]the same is [referred ][by ][the ][Honble ][Magistrate' ][The ][learned]Additional Public [Prosecutor ][would submit ][that ][the claim ][of ][the]petitioner of having [purchased ][the ][said ][plots from ][the ][original]owner under [valid ][document ][stands ][unsubstantiated ]' [in ][view ][of]the fact that [the ][vendor himself ][has ][been ][examined as ][a ][witness]and disputing [the ][execution ][of ][the ][document ][under which ][the]petitioner is claiming [title.]

6. Having regard to [the ][submissions ][made ][as ][above ][and]considering [the fact ][that ][the ][entire dispute ][relates ][to ][the ][execution]of the document [by ][the ][vendor ][initially ][in ][favour ][of the ][petitioner]and subsequently [in ][favour ][of ][the ][second ][resportdent/ ][d ][e facto]

complainant by AGPA [holder ][need ][to ][be gone ][into ][by examination]of the document [and the ][witnesses ][and ][also ][taking ][note of ][the ][fact]that the petitioner [is ][an ][advocate ][with ][long ][standing and practicing]at Warangal District Court, [this ][Court ][is ][of ][the ][view ][that ][the]authorities [are ][to ][be directed ][to ][follow ][the ][procedure]respondent prescribed under Section [41-A ][of Cr.P.C. ][and ][also ][to strictly ][follow]the guideiines as laid [down ][by ][the ][Hon'ble Supreme ][Court ][in]Arnesh Kumar [a, ][State ][of ][Blhart ][and act ][in ][accordance ][with ][law,]while investigating [into ][the ][above ][crime.]

7. Subject to the above [observation and ][direction, the criminal]petition is disposed of. [Miscellaneous ][petitions, ][il ][any, ][pending in]this criminal [petition ][shall ][stand ][closed.]

' [(2014) 8 ][scc ][273]

SD/. B.SATYAVATHIAS SISTANT [REGIS]

,TRUE [COPY//]

SECTION [OFFICE][ R]

to'',. ,nu lV additional [Metropolitan Magistrate cum ][lV ][Additional Junior ][Civil ][Judge']Cvberabad, [at ][L ][B ][Naqar'][[Rachakonda]],nu lV additional [Metropolitan Magistrate cum ][lV ][Additional Junior ][Civil ][Judge']Cvberabad, [at ][L ][B ][Naqar'][[Rachakonda]]

Cvberabad, [[Naqar']], ;# a;t-i i"r* [otr["i' ][Ghatkesar Police ][Station' ][[Rachakonda]]''Com missione [rate ]3. Two [CCs ][to the Additional Public Prosecutor' ][High ][Court ][for ][the ][State ][of]Telangana' [at ][HYderabad [OUT]]Telangana' [at ][HYderabad [OUT]]

+. One iC [to ][Sri ][A' Prabhakir ][Rao' Advocate ][[OPUC]]

5. Two CD [CoPies]

'..\.-W

HIGH COURT

TVKJ

DATED:3011212020

ORDER

CRLP.No.6495 of 2020

DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL PETITION

@\[\tc]))rQ\O

srA1or)I3 lgJAr!?fl2_1O**f,ilr:..c,;,.