THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8430 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in F.I.R.No.362 of 2009 dated 25.8.2009 on the file of Pothinamallayapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered for offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 IPC. The petitioners are A1 to A3 and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the criminal case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the criminal case. The accusation made against A1 to A3 is as follows: They sold property admeasuring 855.5 sq.yards in Sy.No.40/1 at Visakhapatnam to the defacto complainant on 7.6.2003 under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1620/03 and when the defacto complainant tried to fence the land, one Pothina Appa Rao, one Pothina Venkata Rao and others objected claiming that neither the defacto complainant nor his vendors got any right or title over the property. When approached, A1 to A3 threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence the complaint. It is the contention of learned counsel for A1 to A3 that the transaction had taken place in the year 2003 and in fact when there was interference, the defacto complainant filed suit O.S.No.1375 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against third parties and obtained temporary injunction and the said suit is pending and no allegations of alleged cheating was made therein against A1 to A3 and no corresponding steps have been taken and in fact, A1 to A3 are the absolute owners of the property and they did not cheat the defacto complainant and therefore there is no basis to prosecute A1 to A3 and cognizance of the matter and therefore the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to 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 the property claiming absolute ownership over the property even though they had just 1/5th share in the property and collected the entire sale consideration from the defacto complainant with the intention of cheating the defacto complainant. At this stage, it cannot be said that the matter is purely civil in nature to do so. The police have to conduct necessary investigation of the case and determine the rights of A1 to A3 over the property. Unless the police would find that they sold the property without absolute rights and the claim of the defacto complainant is true examining relevant documents, the question of filing the corresponding charge sheet does not arise. The learned Magistrate has to apply his mind before taking 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 issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal case it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.” Unless necessary material is there constituting offence under Section 420 and 506 IPC against A1 to A3, the question of arresting them also does not arise. Subject to the above observations, the criminal petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Dated: 29-12-2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8430 of 2009 29.12.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.8430 of 2009 Date: 29th November, 2011 Between: Smt.Pothina Venkata Ratnam and others. .. Petitioners/A1 to A3 And The State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624