THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10761 of 2011 ORDER:
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A1 in Crime No.642 of 2011 of P.S. Alwal, Cyberabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 read with 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lis involved between the petitioner and second respondent is purely civil in nature. He further submitted that the second respondent lodged the complaint after the period of limitation. Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the petitioner executed sale deed in favour of A2 with an intention to deprive the legal rights of the second respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not the stage to decide whether the lis involved between the parties is purely civil in nature or not.
This Court can quash the criminal proceedings while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in the following circumstances: (1) if the allegations made in the complaint/F.I.R. do not constitute any offence; (2) if the allegations made in the complaint ex facie taken to be true and correct, there is no possibility of conviction of the petitioner; (3) if the registration of the case against the petitioner is prohibited by any law for the time being in force; (4) if the registration of the case and continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law; or (5) to secure the ends of justice.
The second respondent is the de facto complainant and the petitioner is A1 in Crime No.642 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 read with 34 IPC. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale on 18.9.2010 with second respondent agreeing to sell the house plot admeasuring 200 Sq.yards bearing plot No.12/B in survey Nos.38, 39 and 42, Surya Nagar, Jonnabanda, Old Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for a consideration of Rs.9.00 lakhs. The second respondent paid an amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the petitioner towards advance. In respect of the same plot, the petitioner executed registered sale deed dated 12.1.2009 in favour of A2.
This is not the stage to decide whether the second respondent lodged the complaint within the period of limitation or not. The court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only while deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry to ascertain reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial stage of investigation. The material placed on record is prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint including the period of limitation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principle enunciated in R.P.Kapoor v State of Punjab[1] and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal[2], I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings at the threshold.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Station House Officer, Alwal P.S., may be directed not to arrest the petitioner till completion of investigation. A perusal of the record reveals that this court granted interim stay on 04.11.2011 and the same has been in force till today. In view of the earlier order passed by this court and also the nature of the l i s involved between the parties, the Station House Officer, Alwal P.S., is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/A1 in Crime No.642 of 2011 till completion of investigation or filing of final report.
With the above direction, the criminal petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition, shall stand closed.
T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J September 16, 2014.
YS
[1] AIR 1960 SC 866
[2] AIR 1992 SC 604