IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY THE TWELVETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2012 Between:
P. Vishwanatham … Petitioner/Accused V/s.
The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & AP … Respondents/Complainant & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad Counsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor for R-1 Sri N.Kamaraju for R-2 The court made the following : [order follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2012 O R D E R :
This Criminal Petition is filed to quash FIR in Crime No. 861 of 2011 of Kukkatpally Police Station, Ranga Reddy district for alleged offences 420 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that entire allegations in the complaint are of civil nature and it is only an allegation of breach of contract for which a civil remedy is available and parties have already availed that remedy and filed OS.No. 606 of 2011 for specific performance of contract. He submitted that when a civil suit is pending in respect of the same dispute, a criminal case cannot lie, therefore, FIR in Crime No.861 of 2011 of Kukkatpally Police Station is liable to be quashed.
4. Advocate for Respondents 2 to 5 submitted that case is only at the stage of FIR and unless investigation is conducted truth or other wise of allegations can not be known.
5. I have perused the material papers filed along with this Criminal Petition.
6. As seen from the complaint, the main allegation against petitioner is that having received huge amount of Rs.1,05,00,000=00 [Rs.One Crore and Five Lakhs only] from the complainant and having agreed to register the property petitioner has postponed the same on one pretext or the other and subsequently the complainant came to know that petitioner have let out that property to third parties for running small scale industry without giving intimation to the complainant by receiving huge amounts from third parties with malafide intention. It is further alleged in the complaint that when the complainant approached the accused he abused the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences and deliberately stated that he is not going to register the property. These aspects require thorough investigation because when specific allegation are made that with malafide intention some third parties are inducted into possession without intimating to the complainant having received huge amount from the complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences when questioned the act of the accused. These aspects would prima facie attract offences alleged against him, therefore, it requires thorough investigation for that I am of the view that there are no grounds to quash FIR at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petition if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR .
12/09/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2012 Circulation No. 84 Date: 12/09/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43