CRLP/8430/2009 of Smt. Pothina Venkata Ratnam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 December 2011

ORAL ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quashproceedings in F.I.R.No.362 of 2009 dated 25.8.2009 on the file ofPothinamallayapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered foroffence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC.

The petitioners are A1 to A3 and the second respondent is thedefacto complainant in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience,the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in thecriminal case.

The accusation made against A1 to A3 is as follows:

They sold property admeasuring 855.5 sq.yards in Sy.No.40/1 atVisakhapatnam to the defacto complainant on 7.6.2003 under registeredsale deed bearing Doc.No.1620/03 and when the defacto complainanttried to fence the land, one Pothina Appa Rao, one Pothina Venkata Raoand others objected claiming that neither the defacto complainant nor hisvendors got any right or title over the property. When approached, A1 toA3 threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hencethe complaint.

It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A3 that thetransaction had taken place in the year 2003 and in fact when there wasinterference, the defacto complainant filed suit O.S.No.1375 of 2005 onthe file of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against third parties andobtained temporary injunction and the said suit is pending and noallegations of alleged cheating was made therein against A1 to A3 and nocorresponding steps have been taken and in fact, A1 to A3 are theabsolute owners of the property and they did not cheat the defactocomplainant and therefore there is no basis to prosecute A1 to A3 andcognizance of the matter and therefore the proceedings are liable to bequashed.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient groundsto quash the proceedings.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is a question as to whether A1 to A3 sold theproperty claiming absolute ownership over the property even though theyhad just 1/5[th] share in the property and collected the entire saleconsideration from the defacto complainant with the intention of cheatingthe defacto complainant. At this stage, it cannot be said that the matter ispurely civil in nature to do so. The police have to conduct necessaryinvestigation of the case and determine the rights of A1 to A3 over theproperty. Unless the police would find that they sold the property withoutabsolute rights and the claim of the defacto complainant is true examiningrelevant documents, the question of filing the corresponding charge sheetdoes not arise. The learned Magistrate has to apply his mind beforetaking any steps in the matter. In KISHAN SINGH v. GURPAL SINGH

AND OTHERS[[1]],the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Thus in view of the above, the law on the issuestands crystallized to the effect that the findings of factrecorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so faras the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standardof proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil casesit is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case itis proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither anystatutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by thecourt either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be bindingbetween the same parties while dealing with the samesubject matter and both the cases have to be decided on thebasis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there maybe cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of theIndian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance ofprevious Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken intoconsideration.”

Unless necessary material is there constituting offence underSection 420 and 506 IPC against A1 to A3, the question of arresting themalso does not arise.

Subject to the above observations, the criminal petition isdismissed.

Dated: 29-12-2011DA

________________________

G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD

Date: 29[th] November, 2011

Between:

Smt.Pothina Venkata Ratnam and others.

.. Petitioners/A1 to A3

And

The State of A.P., rep. by thePublic Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,Hyderabad and another.

.. Respondents