IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8111 of 2009 DATE: 13.10.2011 Between: Jonnalagadda Radhika and another …… Petitioners And The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.8111 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners 1 and 2/A-1 and A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C. A-1 is daughter of A-2. Transactions between the accused and the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant is by way of agreement for sale dated 26.02.2007 in respect of 300 Sq. yds, in plot No.67 of Patrika Nagar lay out in S.No.78 of Madapur village. According to 2nd respondent, a total sum of Rs.23,00,000/- was paid out of the total consideration. 2) It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is no valid execution of contract between the parties because both the parties did not put their signatures in the agreement at one and the same time by way of meeting of their minds. The agreement as it now stands contains the signatures of A-1 as well as the 2nd respondent. It is alleged in the private complaint filed by the defacto-complainant that A-1 executed the agreement and sent it through A-2 to the 2nd respondent and she signed on it subsequently. Signing of a sale agreement by the purchaser is not necessary always. It is only a covenant executed by owner of the property by way of appending his/her signature thereto. Further, the agreement also does not read that it was entered into “between” A-1 and the 2nd respondent it reads that the agreement was executed by A-1 “in favour of” the complainant. Signature of the purchaser/2nd respondent in the agreement is only optional and is not a requirement of law. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no valid execution of document between the parties. 3) It is the complaint of the 2nd respondent that property in plot No.67 falls into the Government land and that without disclosing the same, the accused fraudulently executed the agreement for sale and obtained huge sale consideration from the 2nd respondent. Placing reliance on Narne Estates Private Ltd., Secunderabad V. Dr.E.Surender Rao[1] of this Court, it is contended that in order to constitute an offence under Section 420 I.P.C, there must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception of the transaction and that the offence under Section 406 I.P.C has to be distinguished from civil wrong of breach of contract. It is the 2nd respondent’s case that in spite of demands, the accused did not come forward and began postponing survey of the land to find out whether the property being sold by the accused is part of Government land or not. This part of the complaint alone may amount to breach of contract. But it is allegation of the 2nd respondent that even without the petitioners having title to the property and even though the land being sold is Government land the accused made the 2nd respondent to enter into agreement for sale and part with huge amount. This part of the complaint is not a civil dispute between the parties. Because of the said allegation, the case prima facie attracts penal provisions under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. Proof of the said allegations is to be made during trial before the Magistrate in case charge sheet is going to be filed in this case. Truth or otherwise thereof cannot be subject matter of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There are no grounds for quashing F.I.R in this case. 4) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 13, 2011 ksh [1] 2006(2)ALD (Crl.) 416 (AP)