THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7241 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 464, 468, 323, 506 I.P.C. Even though the Police filed charge sheet after completing investigation, the petitioner did not furnish copies of charge sheet and the documents, including statements of witnesses filed along with the charge sheet. The petitioner filed copy of FIR/private complaint referred to the Police. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the allegations are purely civil in nature and that there is no payment of any money by the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant to A2 in this transaction. 2. Subject matter of the case is Ac.18.31 guntas of land in S.Nos.172 and 173 of Bibipur Village of Dichpally Mandal of Nizamabad District. Originally, the said land was owned by A2. A2 executed a registered sale deed No.1676 of 2006 in favour of A1. A1 and A2 are stated to be close relations. Immediately thereafter, A1 agreed to sell the same land to the 2nd respondent and obtained Rs.5,00,000/- from him towards part of sale consideration under the agreement and the balance amount of Rs.18,14,875/- has to be paid within thirty days from 02.08.2006. Meanwhile, the complainant came to know that the land is assigned land in which neither A2 nor A1 had any saleable interest. It is alleged that with a view to obtain money from outsiders, A1 and A2 entered into a collusive and fraudulent registered sale deed No.1676 of 2006 to show colorable saleable interest in the land. It is further alleged that A1 entered into another agreement for sale with Sadulla Ramesh, Padma Venkateswar and Mamidi Rajeshwar on 08.04.2006 and received Rs.21,5o,000/- from them and subsequently entered into the present agreement for sale with the complainant suppressing the previous agreement. According to the de facto complainant, it was A2 who received part of sale consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by him under the agreement for sale on 02.08.2006. The 2nd respondent alleges deception and fraudulent inducement on the part of the accused to part with huge money in the transaction. It is further alleged that on 21.01.2007, when the 2nd respondent demanded for refund of money, A1 and A2 abused him and beat him with hands and A2 pointed out a knife to him and pushed him down and threatened him. All these allegations go to show that from inception, there is element of criminality in this transaction. There are absolutely no grounds to intercept trial of the case in the lower Court. 3. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:23.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7241 of 2009 Dt:23.12.2011 ysk