Koppineedi Rambabu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1929 AP

                                      1



      THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

     CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1277, 2634 and 3199 of 2022

Crl. Petition No.1277 of 2022

Between:-

Koppineedi Rambabu                             .... Petitioner/Accused No.1

                                     And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

2) Munagala Ramakrishna                           ..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner       :        Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy

Counsel for the 1st Respondent   :        Learned Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent   :        Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora

Crl.Petition No.2634 of 2022

Between:-

Kadiam Ramesh and another            ....     Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 & 4

                                     And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

2) Munagala Ramakrishna                           ..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner       : Mr.Posani Venkateswarlu

Counsel for the 1st Respondent   : Learned Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent   : Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora
                                     2



Crl.Petition No.3199 of 2022

Between:-

Palaparthi Nageswara Rao                   .... Petitioner/Accused No.2
                                   And
1) The State of Andhra Pradesh,
represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati.

2) Munagala Ramakrishna                       ..... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner       : Mr.K.S.Murthy, Senior Counsel,
                                   Assisted by Mr.Ponnada Sreevyas

Counsel for the 1st Respondent   : Learned Public Prosecutor

Counsel for the 2nd Respondent   : Mr.K.B.Ramanna Dora


ORDER:

Seeking quashing of the order of the learned I Additional Judicial

First Class Magistrate, Narasapuram, West Godavari District dated

10.02.2022 passed in S.R.No.2717 of 2021 and the consequential Crime

No.119 of 2022 on the file of Mogalthur Police Station, the above Criminal

Petitions are filed and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The petitioner in Criminal petition No.1277 of 2022 is accused No.1

and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3199 of 2022 is the accused No.2.

The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.2634 of 2022 are accused Nos.3

and 4 in the said crime. The 2nd respondent herein lodged a private

complaint vide S.R.No.2717 of 2021 under Sections 156(3), 190 and 200

of Code of Criminal Procedure(for short „Cr.P.C.‟) before the learned

Magistrate to enquire into and punish the accused under Sections 463,

464, 467, 468, 474 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short „I.P.C.‟).

3. As per the allegations of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant,

he is a permanent resident of Pulaparthivari Thota, Mogalthur Mandal,

West Godavari District and the petitioners/accused are his close friends. It

is the case of the de facto complainant that he is the owner of wet land

admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in R.S.No.915-4A of Ramannapalem Panchayat

of Mogalthur Revenue Village and the accused No.1 purchased Ac.0.55

cents out of the said extent of Ac.1.30 cents under four registered Sale

Deeds. In the complaint, it was alleged that on the date of execution of

the Sale Deeds, accused No.1 also requested the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant to sell another extent of Ac.0.15 cents out of the said land,

for which the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant agreed and

accordingly, they entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 03.10.2020 for

Rs.28,50,000/- and the accused No.1 issued two Cheque Nos.152157 and

152158 for Rs.5,00,000/- each towards advance purchase price, both

drawn on SBI. It was further alleged that on 04.02.2021, the accused

No.1 sent a legal notice to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

stating that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant executed an

Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 in favour of the accused No.1 selling

Ac.0.75 cents land in R.S.No.915-4A (bearing New R.S.No.915-4/A1 & A2)

and demanded for Specific Performance of the same. In the complaint, it

was stated that the 2nd respondent got issued a Reply Notice dated

16.02.2021 denying the execution of the Agreement of Sale and that the

accused No.1 filed O.S.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Court of X

Additional District Judge at Narasapuram for Specific Performance and

when the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant received summons and

perused the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020, he came to know that

the accused No.1 in collusion brought into existence the Agreement of

Sale by forging the signatures. In the complaint, it was further stated that

after receipt of suit summons, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant

placed the matter before the elders i.e., 1) Padavala Krishna, 2) Padavala

Babji and 3) Ananthapalli Venkata Mutyala Lakshmi Nageswara Rao @

Babu and though the mediators called accused No.1, he did not turn up

and gave evasive replies and as such all the accused Nos.1 to 4/

petitioners with a dishonest intention colluded together and forged the

signatures and fabricated the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 for

Rs.90,75,000/-, as if it was executed by the 2nd respondent/ de facto

complainant and pressed the same into service knowing well that it is a

fabricated and forged document to portrait that the accused No.1

purchased the subject land covered by the Agreement of Sale.

4. The learned Magistrate after considering the said complaint,

referred the matter to the Station House Officer, Mogalthuru under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for registering the First Information Report and

investigation, pursuant to which Crime No.119 of 2022 was registered for

the offences under Sections 463, 464, 467, 468 and 474 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

5. Mr.Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Criminal Petition No.2634 of 2022

made detailed submissions inter alia contending that the Order of the

learned Magistrate and subsequent registration of Crime against the

petitioners is not sustainable, inasmuch as the allegations made against

the petitioners does not constitute any offence, much less a cognizable

offence requiring the police to investigate. He submits that the learned

Magistrate did not assign any reasons for referring the complaint to the

police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and that the

learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind to the allegations

made in the private complaint, referred the same to the police in a

mechanical manner. He submits that the application of mind should be

reflected in the Order of the learned Magistrate where jurisdiction is

exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of

Cr.P.C. He submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision in

Supreet Singh v. The State of Telangana [Criminal Petition No.9056

of 2018, dated 26.09.2018]

6. Making further submissions, the learned Senior Counsel would

contend that the Order of the learned Magistrate is also not sustainable,

as the same is not in tune with the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. 1 He submits that a private

complaint, which is sought to be referred to police for investigation under

(2015) 6 SCC 287

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., shall be supported by an affidavit and in the

present case, the affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant is not in consonance with the Rules and Formats prescribed

under Civil Rules of Practice. He submits that the affidavit is lacking in

material particulars and events, that mere filing of such affidavits would

not suffice to meet the test laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Priyanka Srivatsava's case referred to supra. In support of his

contentions, the learned Senior Counsel also relies on the decision of a

learned Judge of this Court dated 30.08.2019 passed in M.Hanumantha

Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh etc., [Criminal Petition Nos.4560 of

2019 and 4642 of 2019].

7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the various dates and events

set out in the petition, the learned Senior Counsel further contends that

the complaint of the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is civil in nature

and that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant filed a false complaint

to coerce the petitioners/accused to get them to his terms of Settlement

and to extract more money towards sale consideration covered by the

Agreement of Sale in question. He submits that the 2nd respondent/ de

facto complainant lodged the complaint against the petitioners/accused 3

& 4 after the accused No.1 filed O.S.No.3 of 2021 for Specific Performance

of Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020.

8. Elaborating his arguments further, the learned Senior Counsel

submits that before instituting the said suit, the 1st petitioner/accused

No.1 got issued a legal notice to the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant

on 04.02.2021 to which a reply notice was got issued by the 2 nd

respondent/de facto complainant on 16.02.2021 wherein, there is no

whisper or allegations of forgery leveled against the petitioners. He

submits that the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant filed Vakalat in the

said suit on 19.03.2021 and as the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

with the support of police is coercing to enter into settlement, accused

No.1 filed W.P.No.24195 of 2021, that the same was disposed of on

25.10.2021 recording that the police are not interfering in civil disputes.

He submits that after lapse of nine months from the date of issuance of

legal notice, the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant lodged the private

complaint on 29.11.2021. He also submits that on 01.12.2021, the 2 nd

respondent filed his Written Statement dated 18.10.2021 in O.S.No.3 of

2021, wherein the allegations of forgery were leveled against the

petitioners. He submits that the above chronological events would go to

show that the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant lodged a complaint

only to exert pressure on the petitioners, coerce them and to get into the

terms of the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant. He submits that the

impugned order of the learned Magistrate and the registration of F.I.R., as

also the consequential investigation by the police will have an impact on

the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 and further that whether the 2 nd

respondent/de facto complainant executed an Agreement of Sale dated

08.06.2020 or whether it was forged are matters that can be decided only

in the suit, which was instituted prior to lodging of the complaint and not

by investigation by the police.

9. Relying on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Babu

Venkatesh and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another2 etc.,

the learned Senior Counsel submits that continuation of proceedings

against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 would amount to abuse of

process of Law and seeks to allow the Criminal Petition as prayed for.

10. Mr. K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner

in Criminal Petition No.3199 of 2022 advanced arguments supporting the

submissions made on behalf of accused Nos.3 and 4. While contending

that in view of the registration of crime, none of the witnesses will come

forward to depose in the Civil Suit and the complaint was lodged with a

malafide intention to strike fear in the mind of the petitioner/accused

No.2, he submits that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse

of process of Law and therefore the Criminal Petition deserves to be

allowed.

11. Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

in Criminal Petition No.1277 of 2022 drawing the attention of this Court to

the material on record and Para No.10 of the Written Statement made

submissions on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel has also

(2022) 5 SCC 639

drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant and contends that the same is bald and

vague, on the basis of which, the veracity of the allegations made against

the petitioner/accused No.1 cannot be made out. He submits that in any

event, the learned Magistrate passed the Order under challenge in a

mechanical manner, without appreciating the crucial aspect that the

petitioner/accused No.1 already instituted a suit for Specific Performance

of Agreement of Sale even before lodging of the complaint by the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant in the proper perspective, that the

genuineness of documents, more particularly with reference to the forgery

would be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court after conducting trial.

The learned counsel to buttress his submissions, placed reliance on the

judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel

and Others v. State of Gujarat3. While adopting the arguments of the

learned Senior Counsel, he submits that continuation of the criminal

prosecution against the petitioner/accused No.1 in the facts and

circumstances would tantamount to abuse of process of Law and

accordingly urges for allowing the Criminal Petition.

12. The learned counsel also sought to advance detailed arguments

with reference to the execution of Agreement of Sale and other

documents, but this Court is inclined to examine the matter mainly with

reference to the legal aspects.

(2020)3 SCC 794

13. Mr.K.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent/de facto complainant on the other hand, strenuously opposed

the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/accused. He submits

that the affidavits filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant along with the petition filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.,

contains the details to support the case of the 2nd respondent/ de facto

complainant and the contentions contra are not tenable. He submits that

the Civil Rules of Practice or Criminal Procedure Code have not prescribed

any format with regard to affidavits, that the affidavits as filed in support

of the 2nd respondent‟s case, is in sufficient compliance with the

requirements. He submits that the delay in lodging the complaint to the

police cannot be viewed seriously as the 2nd respondent/ de facto

complainant after collecting the documents filed in the suit realized that

the same are forged. He contends that the submissions made with regard

to payments are questions of fact and matter for trial. He submits that

the learned Magistrate is required to see whether a prima facie case is

made out or not and in the present case, the learned Magistrate having

satisfied on the basis of material that there is a prima facie case, referred

the matter for investigation, after assigning cogent reasons. In such

circumstances, the learned counsel submits that, no interference is

warranted as the police is required to conduct investigation into

allegations of forgery etc., leveled against the petitioners/accused. He also

submits that mere pendency of a Civil Suit is not a bar to the criminal

prosecution/proceedings. While seeking to dismiss the Criminal Petitions,

the learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai

Karmur & Others v. State of Gujarat and Another4 and Kamaladevi

Agarwal v. State of West Bengal5.

14. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while supporting the

arguments advanced on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that the

learned Magistrate after due application of mind to the material on record

including the affidavits filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, passed the

Order which is under challenge by assigning reasons. He submits that the

reasons need not be elaborate and it would suffice, if the application of

mind by the Magistrate is reflected in the Order. He submits that the

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., are to be exercised in exceptional

circumstances and there are no such circumstances, calling for

interference by this Court in exercise of inherent powers and therefore,

the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

15. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on

record.

(2017) 9 SCC 641

(2002) 1 SCC 555

16. Referring to the order of the learned Magistrate dated 10.02.2022,

it was mainly contended that the said order is not in consonance with the

expression of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivatsava's case

referred supra and was passed in a mechanical manner. In the said

Judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court taking a serious note of the trend

in lodging frivolous and false private complaints under Section 156(3) of

Cr.P.C., and to discourage the filing of such applications in a routine and

casual manner, emphasized the need for filing sworn affidavit by the

applicant along with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., application. In this regard, it

would be profitable to extract the relevant para from the said judgment,

which reads follows:

"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores."

17. In the present case, it is no doubt true that along with the

application made by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., an affidavit was filed, a perusal of which would

clearly go to show that the same is lacking in the relevant

details/particulars. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant that as no format is

prescribed in Cr.P.C./Criminal Rules of Practice and the affidavit as is filed

is sufficient, in the absence of the relevant particulars and events, the

question of examining the veracity of the allegations by the learned

Magistrate would not arise.

18. In M.Hanumantha Rao's case referred to supra, a learned Judge

dealing with more or less similar situation like in the present case, after

referring to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Priyanka

Srivastava's case, inter alia opined as follows:

.......The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India noted that unscrupulous litigants can take steps in the Court of law and in order to prevent an unscrupulous litigant from taking advantage of the system and to encourage honest citizens to have free access to judicial system, the Hon‟le Supreme Court of India mandated the filing of an affidavit. This is the purpose of the affidavit. The affidavit in the opinion of this Court should contain a statement on oath at least briefly of all the relevant particulars and events/offences which are mentioned in the complaint that is filed. This would enable the Magistrate to verify the truth and also the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint. Mere filing of any affidavit will not suffice. Sufficient details of the alleged offence with dates and description of the events however

brief are necessary in the affidavit to meet the test laid down in Priyanka Srivastava's case. This affidavit would make the applicant more responsible......(emphasis supplied)

19. The above referred decisions in the considered opinion of this

Court, squarely applies to the facts of the case. The affidavit filed by the

2nd respondent is bald, vague and on the basis of the same, veracity of

the allegations cannot be examined. The contentions of the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent are therefore rejected.

20. Examining the Order under challenge, with reference to the other

contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel, it is noted from the

material on record, which is not in dispute that the accused

No.1/petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1277 of 2022 instituted a suit in

O.S.No.3 of 2021 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge at

Narasapuram for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale dated

08.06.2020, which according to the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant

is brought into existence by forging the signatures. It may also be relevant

to mention here that prior to institution of the said suit, notices were

exchanged between the accused No.1 and the 2nd respondent/de facto

complainant and after long lapse of about nine months, the private

complaint was lodged. It is also not in dispute that the complaint was

lodged after the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant received the suit

summons in the said suit. Be that as it may. The 2nd respondent/ de facto

complainant filed his Written Statement and contesting the suit. Though

the learned Magistrate had taken note that the accused No.1, had filed a

suit in O.S.No.3 of 2021, he failed to appreciate the said aspect in a

proper perspective, more particularly with reference to the sequence of

events. In the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the 2 nd

respondent/ de facto complainant himself has referred to filing of the said

suit and stated that the signatures contained in the Agreement of Sale

dated 08.06.2020 were forged by the accused for unlawful gain. In such

circumstances, the learned Magistrate instead of referring the matter to

police for registration of F.I.R., and investigation, should have allowed the

2nd respondent/ de facto complainant to contest the suit, more particularly

as the question of alleged agreement of Sale/forgery would be determined

by the competent Civil Court, by conducting a full-fledged Trial.

21. In Babu Venkatesh's case, on which reliance is placed on behalf

of the petitioners, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with the orders

passed by the High Court of Karnataka, dismissing the Criminal Petitions

filed by the accused. In the said case, agreement of Sales were entered

into between the parties pursuant to which, some amounts are paid. The

appellants/accused in the said case instituted different suits for Specific

Performance of Agreement of Sale and the 2nd respondent therein after

filing of Written Statement in the said suits, lodged a private complaint

alleging that the appellants committed forgery etc., and as such they are

liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 420, 464, 465, 468

and 120-B of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate directed investigation by the

police by entertaining the said private complaint.

22. Challenging the said order, the accused filed quash petitions which

were dismissed. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the said case,

set aside the Orders passed by the High Court inter alia holding that the

Civil Suits have been filed with regard to the same transactions and

though they are contested by the respondent No.2 therein by filing the

Written Statement, he has chosen to file complaint under Section 156(3)

of Cr.P.C., after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of

the Written Statement with an ulterior motive of harassing the petitioner.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also referred to the decision of Priyanka

Srivatsava's case with reference to the affidavits to be filed along with

the petitions under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

23. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel's case, on which reliance is

placed by Mr.M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for accused No.1, the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with the fact situation wherein some

summary suits were filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recovery

of amounts on the basis of four receipts issued by the respondent No.2.

The learned Magistrate issued summons for appearance of the

respondents in the suit which were served on 01.11.2015 and only

thereafter they came to know about the said four receipts. Alleging that

the appellants before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court have forged and

fabricated the four receipts, a complaint was filed alleging cheating and

forgery and based on the said complaint, an F.I.R., was registered under

Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 114 of I.P.C. The Hon‟ble

Supreme Court after examining the matter, quashed the F.I.Rs., inter alia

holding that "when the issue as to the genuineness of the receipts is

pending consideration of the Civil Court, the F.I.R., ought not to have

been allowed to continue as it would prejudice the interest of the parties

and the stand taken by them in the Civil Suit.".

In view of the decisions referred to supra, as also the decision in

Criminal Petition No.9050 of 2018 wherein a similar view was expressed,

the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner merits acceptance.

24. In so far as the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Parabatbhai Aahir, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel

for the 2nd respondent, the same arise on a different fact situation,

wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case involving

allegations of extortion, forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization

of fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the

registering authorities and deprivation of the complainant of his interest in

land on the basis of a fabricated power of attorney. The Hon‟ble Court

while summarizing the broad principles with reference to Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., upheld the view taken by the High Court that in a case involving

extortion, forgery and conspiracy where all the petitioners/appellants were

acting as a team, it was not in the interest of society to quash the F.I.R.,

on the ground that a settlement had been arrived at with the complainant.

25. In Kamaladevi Agarwal case, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was

dealing with an appeal filed against the order of the High Court quashing

the complaint for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120 B of

I.P.C. The Hon‟ble Apex Court was not inclined to accept the view taken

by the High Court to the effect that when the very foundation of the

Criminal case namely forgery of document is under scrutiny by the Court

in a civil proceedings instituted by the same person i.e., the complainant

in the criminal case, it would not be proper to allow the criminal

proceedings to continue when the validity of the document is being tested

in the civil proceeding. The Hon‟ble Apex Court opined that the criminal

cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as

prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a

civil action in a different Court even though higher in status and authority,

cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.

26. Though there is some merit in the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant with

reference to the above said decision, in the light of the subsequent/latest

decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Hon‟ble Apex Court relied on

behalf of the petitioners, this Court has no option, except to reject the

same. Further, a Learned Judge of this Court by an Order dated

02.11.2022 in Crl.P.Nos.8433 & 8434 of 2022 quashed Criminal

proceedings in similar circumstances relying on the decisions of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court including Sardool Singh v. Nasib Kaur6.

27. Be that as it may. In the light of the decisions of the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

conclusions arrived at, on the basis of the same, this Court is inclined to

exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as continuation of the

proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of

Law.

28. Accordingly, the Order passed by the learned Magistrate in

S.R.No.2717 of 2021 as also the consequential proceedings against the

petitioners/accused are quashed and the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

However, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant is at liberty to initiate

criminal action in the event of the Civil Court recording a finding to the

effect that the Agreement of Sale dated 08.06.2020 is forged and

fabricated. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall

stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 17.04.2023

BLV

1987(supplementary) SCC 146

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1277, 2634 and 3199 of 2022

Date: .04.2023

BLV