JUDGMENT The petitioners seek for quashment of C.C. No. 124 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent initially was an individual who was the Manager of the Bank. The petitioners amended the petition through Crl. P.M.P. No. 7013 of 2012 bringing State Bank of Hyderabad represented by its Branch manager as the 2nd respondent. Crl. P.M.P. No. 7013 of 2012 was allowed today. Consequently, the manager of the bank is brought on record as 2nd respondent. 2. The case of the 2nd respondent-defacto complainant is that the petitioners borrowed monies by mortgaging assigned lands deliberately and that the petitioners consequently were guilty of the offences under Sections 415, 420 and 471 IPC. In fact the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 14-1-2008. The complaint was registered as Crime No. 5 of 2008 on the file of the Vinukonda Police Station. After due investigation, police referred the complaint as a mistake of fact. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent laid the private complaint. 3. Sri Venkata Raghu Ramulu, learned counsel for the defacto-complainant contended that the two petitioners indulged in deliberate cheating and used spurious documents so much so they are liable for punishment under Sections 415, 420 and 471 IPC. 4. Petitioners 1 and 2 are teachers working at Vinukonda. They are husband and wife. They sought for a loan from the 2nd respondent bank on 10-12-2004. They mortgaged their properties by deposit of title deeds. Loan was sanctioned on 13-12-2004. 5. When the petitioners defaulted in payment of installments, the 2nd respondent wanted to redeem the mortgage. The 2nd respondent contended that it came out that the mortgaged properties were assigned lands. Consequently, the 2nd respondent lodged a complaint on 29-11-2007. When police referred the complaint as mistake of fact on 20-3-2009, the 2nd respondent filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vinukonda, which was registered as C.C. No. 124 of 2009. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the petitioners were aware that the lands were assigned lands, that they cannot be mortgaged and that they deliberately cheated the 2nd respondent-bank. Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, pointed out that out of the amount of the loan borrowed at Rs. Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, pointed out that out of the amount of the loan borrowed at Rs. 3,25,000/- by the petitioners, the petitioners discharged the loan to a tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- through installments. His case is that if the intention of the petitioners were to cheat the bank, the petitioners would not have repaid the loan in installments. 7. More important, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not aware that the properties were assigned lands and are prohibited from sale or mortgage. They claimed that they are bona fide purchasers of the property and that they mortgaged the same to the 2nd respondent-bank. It is his contention that if there was any cheating, it must have been on the part of the vendor of the petitioners and not on the part of the petitioners themselves. 8. Be that as it is, the properties mortgaged are assigned lands. However, there is no recital in the sale deeds that the properties were assigned lands. When the petitioners mortgaged such lands, I am afraid that it cannot be read that the petitioners were aware that the mortgaged properties were assigned lands and deliberately mortgaged the lands. In the absence of contrary evidence, it cannot be said that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for any of the three offences leveled against them. I, therefore, consider that the criminal proceedings are misconceived C.C. No. 124 of 2009 against the petitioners consequently is quashed. This petition is allowed.