CRLP/7106/2012 of Nagubandi Sitha Mahalakshmi Vs The State of A.P., on 28 December 2012

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is filed toquash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.123 of 2012 of Jaggaiahpet PoliceStation, Krishna District.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the presentCriminal Petition may be stated as follows:

The petitioners herein offered to sell an extent of Ac.0-17 cents inR.S.No.114/3, situated at Jaggayyapet Town. Respondent No.2purchased the said property for a total sale consideration ofRs.14,50,000/- and petitioner No.1 executed an agreement of sale on05.08.2009 and on the same day, respondent No.2 paid an amount ofRs.2,00,000/- as advance. As per the terms and conditions of theagreement of sale, respondent No.2 has to pay the balance of saleconsideration for the remaining extent. Thereafter, respondent No.2paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.11.2009; Rs.2,00,000/- on23.12.2009 to petitioner No.1 and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on05.01.2010 to petitioner No.2 and the same were endorsed on theback side of the agreement of sale on the respective dates by thepetitioners. Respondent No.2 requested the petitioners several timesto measure the site by receiving balance of sale consideration andperform their part of contract by executing a regular registered saledeed with possession in his favour. But, the petitioners are postponingthe same for one reason or the other. Respondent No.2 being vexedwith the attitude of the petitioners, he got measured the site and foundthat the site existing ground is only Ac.0-11 cents but not Ac.0.17cents. Respondent No.2 informed the same to the petitioners. As such, the petitioners cheated respondent No.2 by executing anagreement of sale.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per theagreement of sale, respondent No.2 has to pay the balance of saleconsideration on or before 31.12.2009; that as respondent No.2 failedto pay the same, petitioner No.1 got issued a legal notice on15.07.2010, and the same was received by respondent No.2 on thenext day, but, he failed to pay the balance of sale consideration andthe agreement of sale, dated 05.08.2009, was cancelled; that as thepetitioners are having every right to sell away the property to anybody,the question of cheating respondent No.2 does not arise; thatcontinuation proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuseof process of Court and hence, he prays to quash the proceedingsagainst the petitioners.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2contended that the petitioners colluded with A-3 and fabricated tworegistered sale deeds, dated 20.09.2010, in favour of A-3 to an extentof Ac.0-29 cents; that the agreement of sale, dated 05.08.2009, andalso other site of respondent No.2, was sold by petitioner No.1 torespondent No.2 under a registered sale deed, dated 05.01.2009,thereby causing wrongful loss to respondent No.2 and hence, he praysto dismiss the petition.

5. Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can beinvoked or exercised when there is abuse of process of Court or tosecure the ends of justice or to carry out orders passed under theCode. At the initial stage of the First Information Report, if prima faciecognizable offence is made out, then it is the statutory duty of police toconduct investigation.

6. Necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating whichis defined under Section 415 I.P.C. are: (1) There should be fraudulentor dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (2) (a) theperson so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to anyperson or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b)the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit todo anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,and (3) in cases covered by (2)(b) the act or omission should be onewhich causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the personinduced in body, mind, reputation or property.

7. If the complaint is solely based upon the agreement of sale,dated 05.08.2009, then respondent No.2 has no case because thereare lapses on his part in coming forward to get a regular registeredSale Deed after paying the balance of sale consideration. As a matterof fact, the petitioners got issued a legal notice on 15.07.2010 directingrespondent No.2 to pay balance of sale consideration and obtainregular registered Sale Deed. But, respondent No.2 did not turn up forthe same. The further allegation in the complaint would go to showthat the petitioners sold away a part of land covered under anagreement of sale, dated 05.08.2009, to A-3 under a registered SaleDeed, dated 20.09.2010, whereunder, petitioner No.1 sold Ac.0-17cents of land to respondent No.2. Whether a part of land covered byregistered Sale Deed, dated 20.09.2010, executed by the petitioners infavour of A-3, is a part of the land covered by a Sale Deed, dated05.01.2009, executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of respondent No.2or not, are disputed questions of fact. It is the case of the complainantthat all the accused colluded together brought into existence tworegistered sale deeds, dated 20.09.2010, with a view to cause wrongful loss to him. The acts of the petitioners according to thecomplainant would cause wrongful loss to him. The petitionersalready sold the land to respondent No.2 and again a part of land soldto A-3 is nothing but cheating.

8. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.

DECEMBER 28, 2012YVL

________________

K.C.BHANU, J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

YVL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7106 OF 201228.12.2012