RAVURI KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) By an order dated 25 April 2016, a Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing a First Information Report. However, after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established, the Single Judge granted a blanket order of protection from arrest to the second accused. The second accused is impleaded to these proceedings as the third respondent.

(3.) On 29 March 2016, a complaint was received by the Inspector of Police, Charminar Police Station, Hyderabad from the appellant claiming to be an owner in possession of land ad-measuring Ac 3-18 guntas situated at Jagannadhapuram Panchayati, Rangapuram Village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District, Telangana. It was alleged that the second respondent (the first accused) engaged the third respondent (the second accused) as his lawyer and that the advocate and client colluded to fabricate a sale deed in respect of the property. Moreover, it was alleged that the second respondent instituted a suit, OS No 274 of 2014, before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, Khammam seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellant in respect of the suit property on the basis of a fabricated sale deed dated 30 November 2005. It has been alleged that the records in OS No 274 of 2014 were tampered with by fabricating an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11 November 2014 in favour of the second respondent. Moreover, it was alleged that the second respondent filed a Civil Revision Petition (CRP No 4711 of 2014) before the High Court with a grievance that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not adjudicating upon the dispute. The appellant is alleged to have filed Civil Miscellaneous Revision Petition No 6433 of 2014 in Civil Revision Petition No 4711 of 2014, seeking a stay of further proceedings in IA No 149 of 2014 in OS No 274 of 2014 pending the disposal of the Civil Revision. It was alleged that the second and third respondents had tampered with the records relating to OS No 274/2014 and in the process, had also tampered with the docket sheet of the Mobile Court by fabricating an ex-parte decree dated 11 November 2014.