ORDER : K. Sujana, J. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.09 of 2023 of Genome Valley Police Station, Cyberabad. The offences registered against the petitioners are under Sections 467, 468 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short the ‘I.P.C’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Parvathipuram Nagaiah, owned Ac.2.00 guntas of land in Sy.No.311, later Machani Madhusudhan (petitioner No.2/A.2) had purchased Ac.0.20 guntas of land from Nagaiah in Sy.No.311/A through a registered document bearing No.9929 of 2023 on 15.11.2003 and he sold entire Ac.0.20 guntas of land to M. Govardhan Reddy and M. Pulla Reddy vide registered document bearing No.7252 of 2024 on 09.07.2004. In the year 2021, M. Goverdhan Reddy sold his half share of land i.e., Ac.0.10 guntas to Samarth Gupta through sale deed dated 25.06.2021. That Mr. R. Rajaratnam has got Special Power of Attorney on 07.07.2021 from Samarth Gupta to an extent of Ac.0.10 guntas which was later registered in the name of his brother R. Sree Ramkumar i.e., the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant. The petitioner No.3 who is A.3, is the wife of petitioner No.2, had also purchased Ac.1.10 guntas out of remaining extent of land from Nagaiah in Sy.No.311/B in the year 2004 through a registered document. The petitioner No.3 gifted Ac.00.21½ guntas to her son who is petitioner No.1 by showing wrong boundaries in which the land of Ac.0.20 guntas of Pulla Reddy and R. Ram Kumar exist. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 in collusion with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 sold to his neighbor Badri Pujitha an extent of Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.311/B with boundaries of Samarth Gupta as if it belongs to him instead of his gifted property. Stating so, a complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners. 3. Heard Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri C. Sunil Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1st respondent-State and Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from a plain reading of the complaint it is seen that no case is made out against petitioners for the alleged offences. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from a plain reading of the complaint it is seen that no case is made out against petitioners for the alleged offences. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent is none other than the brother of Raja Ratnam who is bent upon to grab the land of petitioners. The said Raja Ratnam filed a complaint before the Police, Shamirpet Police Station on 07.08.2021 in Cr.No.429 of 2021 for the offences under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of I.P.C, against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 alleging that they have sold the land which is not in existence and after thorough investigation, the police filed report stating as lack of evidence. Subsequently, Raja Ratnam also filed another complaint in Cr.No.447 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 461 of I.P.C, before the Shamirpet Police Station to take action against petitioner No.2 for interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.01.0 guntas of land and also for execution of false sale deed in favour of P. Rajaiah and P. Mallaiah without any right. After investigation the police have issued Section 41-A Cr.P.C, notice, and petitioner No.2 had submitted a detailed reply. He further contended that petitioner No.1 sold Ac.0.04 guntas in Sy.No.311/B of Kolthur Village, Muduchintalapally, Medchal Malkajgiri District to Badri Pujitha with distorted boundaries and if at all there is any grievance it would be for Badri Pujitha but not to the 2nd respondent and he has no right to initiate criminal proceedings. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Md. Ibrahim Vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (2) ALD (Crl) 775 (SC). He further submitted that this case is filed only to harass the petitioners and there are no grounds to proceed further. As such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that lot of documents needs to be investigated in this case. He further submitted that the criminal complaint was filed by the brother of 2nd respondent, vide Cr.No.447 of 2022 against petitioner No.2 for interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.10 guntas of land and also for execution of a false sale deed in favour of P. Rajaiah and Mallaiah without any right on the said land with malafide intention. Further, to quash the present proceedings, petitioners relied on Crl.P.No.11483 of 2023 which has already been disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.11.2023 directing the Station House Officer, Shameerpet Police Station, to pass appropriate orders after considering the reply given by petitioner No.2 to Section 41-A Cr.P.C, notice. It is also submitted that all the criminal complaints were filed against the respective petitioners for the reason that by manipulating the boundaries of the same property, they are sold for multiple times and at each instance when the said boundaries are being manipulated, a portion of the neighbouring land owners property is being shown as the property of the petitioners and therefore, there is an interference with the neighbouring land owners including the brother of 2nd respondent and the subsequent purchasers of the property. It is also submitted that basing on the execution of sale deed and gift deed by the petitioners on the same land, by distorting boundaries into the neighbouring land owners’ property, includes the property of 2nd respondent and his brother. Therefore, the said allegations require investigation. As such, requested the Court to dismiss this petition. 7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the counsel and the material placed on record, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier the complaint filed against the petitioners was closed as lack of evidence and in another complaint, the police registered a case and also served Section 41-A Cr.P.C, notice and explanation was also given to the said notice. Now, the present complaint is filed only to pressurize the petitioners herein and to harass them. It is submitted that the petitioners herein have purchased the property from the original owner and they are having sale deeds. Petitioner No.2 purchased Ac.0.20 guntas of land from P.Nagaiah who is having land of Ac.2.00 guntas in Sy.No.311, in turn, petitioner No.2 sold entire Ac.0.20 guntas in Sy.No.311/A to M.Govardhan Reddy and M.Pulla Reddy. Petitioner No.3 also purchased Ac.1.10 guntas from P.Nagaiah and she gifted Ac.21.5 guntas to her son who is petitioner No.1, who in turn sold the same to his neighbour Badri Pujitha and that there are no fraudulent documents as the said property was purchased through registered sale deeds. Therefore, no offence as alleged constitutes against the petitioners. 8. Petitioner No.3 also purchased Ac.1.10 guntas from P.Nagaiah and she gifted Ac.21.5 guntas to her son who is petitioner No.1, who in turn sold the same to his neighbour Badri Pujitha and that there are no fraudulent documents as the said property was purchased through registered sale deeds. Therefore, no offence as alleged constitutes against the petitioners. 8. In the present case, allegation leveled against petitioner under Section 467 of I.P.C., and the averment shows that petitioner No.1 sold the property with distorting boundaries of 2nd respondent showing his land as the land of petitioner No.1. To constitute the offence under Section 467 of I.P.C, there must be forgery of valuable security or the Will. Section 467 of I.P.C, reads as under : “467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.-- “Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. In the present case, the documents relied on by the petitioners shows that they purchased the property through registered sale deed and petitioner No.3 gifted Ac.0.04 guntas of land to petitioner No.1 and out of Ac.0.04 guntas, he sold Ac.0.02 guntas to Badri Pujitha, through registered sale deed. Though, the allegation is that petitioners have shown the land of 2nd respondent as their own land and sold to another person, the fact is that petitioners have also purchased the land from the original owner and sold to other persons. Thus, the averments do not constitute the offence under Section 467 of I.P.C. 10. The allegations are also leveled against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 468 and 420 of I.P.C. The provision under these Sections read as under : 468. Thus, the averments do not constitute the offence under Section 467 of I.P.C. 10. The allegations are also leveled against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 468 and 420 of I.P.C. The provision under these Sections read as under : 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 11. Having regard to the above provisions, when a sale deed is executed in respect of property claiming ownership, it may be possible for a purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in the present case, the complaint is not given by the purchaser and on the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. It is also not the case of 2nd respondent that the petitioners tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property. Hence, as the ingredients of cheating are not proved, the offences under Sections 468 and 420 of I.P.C, are not attracted to the petitioners. However, as the dispute between the parties is regarding boundaries, the 2nd respondent has to file a suit before the Civil Court but not a criminal case. Hence, as the offences alleged against the petitioners are not established, the proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.09 of 2023 are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.09 of 2023 of Genome Valley Police Station, Cyberabad are hereby quashed. Hence, as the offences alleged against the petitioners are not established, the proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.09 of 2023 are liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.09 of 2023 of Genome Valley Police Station, Cyberabad are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed.