IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6561 of 2009 Between: Vangari Jagadeeshwar … Petitioner And Adepu Laxmi and another. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.6561 of 2009 ORDER:- This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 (for short, ‘A2’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings in Calendar Case No.1088 of 2008 pending on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal (for short, “the Court below”), registered for offences punishable under Sections 290, 323, 336, 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Whereas the petitioner is A2, the respondent No.2 is the de facto complainant in the calendar case. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the calendar case. The de facto complainant filed complaint before the Court below and it was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and then the case was registered in Crime No.221 of 2008 on the file the Police Station at Inthezargunj and later the police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet before the Court below. Briefly the prosecution version which is to be considered here is as follows: The de facto complainant and her husband entered into an agreement of sale with A1 in respect of his property, but A1 failed to register the property as per the terms of the agreement of sale and finally on 04.06.2008 and 11.06.2008 the de facto complainant and her husband approached the brother of A1 to execute a registered sale deed for the property in the presence of two witnesses, namely; Gangi Jagannadham and M.Rajender, but A1 along with his wife refused to do so and on the other hand threatened the de facto complainant and her husband with dire consequences and posed danger to their lives. At the same time, A2 who was also present there interfered and disclosed that A1 and A3 were not going to sell the property to the de facto complainant and her husband and A1 and A3 decided to sell the property to him and he was going to purchase it. Further A1 along with A3 also openly stated that if the de facto complainant or any person on her behalf would enter the property, they were going to see their end. Then the remaining accused abused the husband of the de facto complainant in most filthy language as stated in the prosecution records and so on. The only allegation against A2 is that he openly declared that he was going to purchase the property from A1 and A3 who would sell the property to the de facto complainant and her husband. It is not a case of any common intention to commit the offences. So no offence is constituted against A2 as per the record. In other words, no material is there with regards to the alleged offences against A2. Nobody should be prosecuted without any basis. The continuation of the proceedings against A2 is only abuse of the process of law thereby. For the reasons discussed above, the criminal petition is allowed as prayed for. ________________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.12.2011 ES