THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7955 of 2011 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in Crime No.392 of 2011 of Visakhapatnam IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam district for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 r/w.34 of IPC.
2. Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the nature of the lis involved between the parties is purely civil in nature, therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner along with another entered into an agreement with the first respondent as if they are the owners of the property. He further submitted that A1 executed GPA in favour of the petitioner herein who is A2 without any right whatsoever over the property.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.
5. This Court can quash the proceedings by exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the following circumstances: (1) if the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence much less the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner; (2) even 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 crime and continuation of investigation would amount to misuse of process of law; or (5) to secure the ends of justice.
6. The first respondent is the de-facto complainant and the petitioner herein is A2. As per the allegations made in the complaint on 09-03-2007 first respondent entered into an agreement with petitioner and A1 to purchase an extent of 440 Sq. yards for an amount of Rs.1,40,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the first respondent paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to A1 and A2 and agreed to pay the balance amount on or before 09-06-2007. For one reason or other the petitioner and A1 did not executed a sale deed in favour of the first respondent.
7. The contention of the first respondent is that the petitioner and A1 are not owners of the property covered under an agreement of sale, dated 09-03-2007.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that civil suit filed by the first respondent was dismissed. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent filed an appeal challenging the dismissal of the suit and the same is pending.
9. The Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the complaint only while deciding the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Court is not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint at the initial state of investigation. Who is the owner of the property will come in light during the course of investigation. The material available on record i s prima facie sufficient to investigate into the matter in order to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in R.P. Kapoor v State of
Punjab
[1] [2] and State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal , I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the threshold.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Station House Officer, Visakhapatnam IV Town Police Station may be directed not to arrest the petitioner/A2.
12. A perusal of the record reveals that this Court granted interim stay on 06-09-2011 and the same has been in force till today. In view of the earlier orders passed by this Court and also the nature of offences alleged in this case, the Station House Officer, Visakhapatnam IV Town Police Station is hereby directed not to arrest the petitioner/A2 in Crime No.392 of 2011 till completion of investigation or filing of final report.
14. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.
T. SUNIL CHOWDARY, J September 02, 2014.
Pn THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. SUNIL CHOWDARY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7955 of 2011 September 02, 2014 Pn
[1] AIR 1960 SC 866
[2] AIR 1992 SC 604