HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4283 OF 2007 DATE:21-10-2010 BETWEEN Dr.P.Vijay Pal Reddy & Another …Petitioners AND State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4283 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.734 of 2003 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, wherein they were charged for the offences under Sections 420, 423 and 384 I.P.C. First petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. The second respondent-de facto complainant, who was working as Development Officer in Laxmi Housing Enterprises, was selling the plots developed by the said Housing Enterprises. Petitioners herein approached the complainant and agreed to purchase Plot No.5 in Sy.Nos.358 and 362, admeasuring 342 sq.yds., situated at Batasingaram Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.yd. and paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- as advance sale consideration and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration in monthly installments. Sometime thereafter, according to the complainant, the petitioners came to his house on 22.7.1995 along with some anti-social elements, trespassed into the house of the complainant, intimidated the complainant with dire consequences and extracted an amount of Rs.1,31,360/- from the complainant and assured the complainant that they will execute necessary document in favour of the complainant or in favour of his nominee so that he can sell away the said plot to third parties and they also executed a receipt in proof of receipt of the said amount. When the complainant visited the office of Laxmi Housing Enterprises, he came to know that the petitioners already got registered the said plot in their name vide registered sale deed, dated 02.06.1995, and that the petitioners suppressed the same, misrepresented and induced the complainant and received Rs.1,31,360/- from him and committed wrongful loss and cheated the complainant. He paid the said amount to the petitioners under fear of threat and pressure. Hence, the petitioners should be proceeded for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 423, 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. The learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad referred the said complaint to the police for investigation. Police after due investigation into the matter, filed a report on 19.11.2002 stating that the alleged trespass by the petitioners and criminal intimidation at house No.8-7-192 as alleged by the complainant is false as the said house belongs to one Subrahmanyam but not to the complainant and that the matter is purely a civil dispute. On filing the said report, the complainant filed a protest petition and on the basis of the protest petition, the learned Magistrate took the case on file in C.C.No.734 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 420, 423 and 384 IPC. A reading of the complaint does not indicate that the petitioners-accused induced the complainant with fraudulent or dishonest intention to deliver any property or intentionally induced the complainant so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or omission caused damage or harm to the complainant in body, mind, reputation or property. The complaint allegations would go to show that the amounts paid by the petitioners was not worth to the plot agreed to be sold by the Laxmi Housing Enterprises, to which the complainant worked as a Development Officer, and that the petitioners demanded to return the amount with a promise that they will execute necessary document by transferring the said property in the name of complainant or in the name of the nominees as advised by the complainant. Therefore, if at all the petitioners-accused fail to honour the said commitment, the remedy of the complainant is only to approach the civil Court, but a reading of the whole complaint does not attract the offence under Section 420 IPC. Further under Sections 423 and 384, the punishment prescribed is only two years and three years. The alleged offence took place on 22.7.1995, whereas the complaint was lodged on 02.09.2002 i.e. nearly after seven years, which is admittedly, barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., which cannot be taken cognizance by the Magistrate. In view of the same, allowing the impugned proceedings to continue will amount to abuse of process of law and unnecessary harassment to the petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 21, 2010 Tsr.