1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in C.C.No.395 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the second respondent/complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/State. Perused the record.

3. The second respondent filed a complaint before police stating that he purchased a total extent of Acs.2-06 Gts., in Sy.Nos.311 & 313 of Lingojigudem Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District vide registered document No.4943 of 2011, executed by Canara Bank Assets Recovery Management Branch, Hyderabad, as Sri V.V.Narasimha Rao, who had purchased the said lands from Smt.Korivi Gopamma, represented by her GPA holder Palle Ram Reddy (A-1), had taken loan from Canara Bank and as the said Narasimha Rao failed to repay the loan, the Bank sold the land.

4. It is further stated that when the second respondent approached the Tahasildar, Choutuppal Mandal, for mutation of his name in the revenue records, he came to know that the petitioner’s name was recorded for an extent of Acs.9-37 Gts., in the said survey numbers as purchaser from A-2 by way of registered sale deeds dated 27.01.2005 and that the said A-2 purchased the said lands in Sy.Nos.311 & 313 by way of registered sale deeds from Smt. Korivi Gopamma, represented by her GPA holder A-1.

5. It is further stated in the complaint that originally Korivi Gopamma was the pattedar of the lands admeasuring Acs.5-06 Gts., in Sy.Nos.311 & 313 and she executed a registered GPA in favour of A-1. Based on the said GPA, A-1 executed a registered sale deed dated 10.09.1993 in respect of land an extent of Acs.2-06 Gts., in favour of V.V.Narasimha Rao. Thus, the second respondent’s possession of the said land through his predecessorin-title is since 1993. The said GPA holder had again after executed registered sale deeds in favour of A-2 in respect of Acs.5-06 Gts., by suppressing the earlier registered sale deeds executed in favour of V.V.Narasimha Rao for an extent of Acs.2-06 Gts. It is stated that based on the said fraudulent sale deeds, A-2 got mutated his name and got pattadar passbook and title deed. Later, A-2 executed sale deed in favour of the petitioner/A-3 again with different boundaries and the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records.

6. It is further stated that A-1, who is the GPA holder of Korivi Gopamma, in collusion with A-2 has willfully and deliberately executed the sale deeds in favour of A-2 with fraudulent intention by creating false documents for their wrongful gains. Though A-1 was not having any land available with him, he in collusion with A-2 has fraudulently executed the registered sale deed in favour of A-2. The said lands sold by A-1 to A-2 also include the lands purchased by the second respondent. Thus, A-1 to A-3 have committed of the offences of cheating and forgery.

7. Based on the above complaint, police, Choutuppal registered a case against petitioner/A-3 and two others (A1 & A-2) for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 IPC and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet, who has taken cognizance of the same in C.C.No.395 of 2014 for the above stated offences. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, having purchased an extent of Acs.9-37 Gts., in Sy.Nos.311 & 313 for a valuable consideration from A-2. The allegations in the complaint prima facie do not constitute any of the offences alleged. He, therefore, prays to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A-3. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in ANIL MAHAN v. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 746 and MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER (2009) 8 SCC 751 [LQ/SC/2009/1792]

9. Learned counsel for the second respondent contends that there prima facie allegations in the complaint attracting the offences of cheating and forgery and the trial court may be permitted to proceed with the case. He, therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

10. A perusal of the complaint/FIR, charge sheet and the statement of witnesses show that the petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.9-37 Gts., in Sy.Nos.311 & 313 for a valuable sale consideration vide registered document Nos.217 & 218 of 2005 dated 27.01.2005. Out of the said extent of Acs.9-37 Gts., it is alleged that the said land includes the land purchased by the second respondent in an extent of Acs.2-06 Gts. It is alleged that A-1, who is the GPA holder of Korivi Gopamma, in collusion with A-2 has willfully and deliberately executed the sale deed in favour of A-2 with fraudulent intention for their wrongful gains though A-1 was not having any land available with him. A-2 and A-3 colluded with each other and with fraudulent intention has created false registered sale deeds for their wrongful gains.

11. The main thrust of the allegations are leveled against A-1 and A-2 for having willfully and deliberately executed sale deed in favour of A-2. Though A-1 was not having land available with him, in collusion with A-2, has fraudulently executed registered sale deed in favour of A-3 and thereby committed the offences of cheating and forgery.

12. To constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequences of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived - (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).

13. Coming to the facts of the present case, the registered sale deeds dated 27.01.2005 were executed by A-2 in favour of the petitioner/A-3. The second respondent is neither a vendor nor was any false representation or inducement was made to him by the petitioner/A-3 to part with the sale consideration. On the one hand,the second respondent is not a purchaser of the land from the original owner Smt.Korivi Gopamma, represented by GPA holder (A-1) and on the other, the petitioner/A-3, who is a purchaser of the land from A-2, is made as a co-accused for no fault of him.

14. Undisputedly, if a person sells a property knowing that it does not belongs to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But the second respondent who is not having any relationship with petitioner/A-3 under the alleged sale deeds cannot make the allegation that he has cheated the second respondent.

15. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the entire allegations in the complaint and charge sheet prima facie do not make out any of the offences alleged and it appears that the matter being essentially and purely civil in nature is being given cloak of criminal offence, obviously to apply pressure on the accused. Even if the allegations contained in FIR/complaint and charge sheet are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety,they do not prima facie constitute any of the ingredients of the offences alleged. Under those circumstances, the continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 would certainly amount to abuse of process of law. It is, therefore, considered a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quash further proceedings against the petitioners.

16. The criminal petition is, accordingly, allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner/A-3 in C.C.No.395 of 2014, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Choutuppal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, are hereby quashed.

17. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.