HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P. No. 1737 of 2009 DATED: 21.12.2011 Between: Krishnam Ramachandra Sudhakar .. Petitioner And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2. Kurmapu Gopala Krishna .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 251 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Takkali, Srikakulam District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC on the ground that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner. 2) The petitioner is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the de facto complainant in the case. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the Calendar Case. 3) Brief facts of the case are as follows: The accused is running a granite company and he used to attend quarry machinery repairs in the workshop of the de facto complainant. While so, on 10.07.2002, the accused took a loan of Rs.2,60,000/- from the de facto complainant, but as he defaulted to repay the loan, he proposed to sell away his proclainer bearing No. H.No.06-2925-2332, LC-200 Model-199 at the rate of Rs.18,60,000/-. Believing that the accused was the owner of the proclainer, the complainant paid the said amount towards the consideration of it. The de facto complainant filed O.S. No. 7 of 2001 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Srikakulam. Then, one P.G. Ravindranath, Partner of M/s. P.V.S. Industries, filed I.A. No. 3381/2004 and got interim custody of the proclainer on the ground that it belonged to his firm and it was given to the accused on lease basis. Thereby the accused suppressed the lease agreement and sold the property to the de facto complainant claiming to be his own and cheated the later. 4) It is the claim of the accused that the de facto complainant filed I.A. No. 1228 of 2004 and obtained the interim custody of the property and he got no capacity to purchase the property and be concocted the corresponding receipt and in fact he (the accused) filed counter in that I.A. claiming that the property belonged to M/s.P.V.S. Industries only. Further, the ingredients of Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are not attracted here. 5) Therefore, it is to be seen whether there are sufficient grounds in order to quash the proceedings. 6) It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that in fact, in the interlocutory application filed by the de facto complainant (I.A. No. 1228 of 2004) on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Srikakulam for temporary injunction in respect of the property the de facto complainant clearly admitted the ownership of the accused over the property, but as the de facto complainant failed to place satisfactory evidence prima facie with regards to his claim of the property, that application was dismissed by order dated 21.09.2004, and therefore, a different stand cannot be taken by the de facto complainant at a later point of time. It is also his contention that the findings of the civil Court are binding on the criminal court in the matter. 7) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant has contended that it is very significant that the very same civil Court on the basis of material available held that the property belonged to M/s. P.V.S. Industries and it is also significant that as per the investigation done by the police, the accused, without being the owner of the property sold the property to the complainant and it is a clear case of cheating and hence, he (the accused) is liable for prosecution accordingly. 8) It is very pertinent to note that as per the investigation done by the police, the accused having claimed to be the owner of the property sold the property to the de facto complainant without any right and further even in the civil suit the civil Court found that the said company was the owner of the property. The allegations supported by record satisfy the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. 9) In Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh and Others[1], the Apex Court held: “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”. 10) Therefore, a person can be prosecuted both for criminal and also civil liability. Simply because a suit is filed against him and is pending, it does not mean that he should not be prosecuted for the criminal liability, and in both the civil proceedings and criminal proceedings the question of ownership of property is to be decided by way of collecting necessary material. No prejudice will be caused to the accused by doing so because if he is held to be the owner of the property or the claim of the de facto complainant is not proved, the question of convicting him and sentencing him for the alleged offence does not arise. Ultimately, there are no merits in the petition and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 11) In the result, the petition is dismissed. Further, as the case has become very old, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the Calendar Case No. 251 of 2009 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 02.12.2011 bcj [1] AIR 2010 SC 3624