HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5209 of 2010 Date : 09.11.2011 Between : E. Dasarath Goud. …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., through S.H.O., Vikarabad P.S. & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5209 of 2010 ORDER : This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.131 of 2010 on the file of P.S.Vikarabad. The aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, based on the reference made by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., on the private complaint filed by respondents 2 and 3 herein. Respondents 2 and 3 herein have filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vikarabad, stating that they are agriculturists and that their lands were acquired by the Government for outer ring road and they were paid compensation. Out of the amount received towards compensation, they wanted to purchase agricultural lands and the petitioner, who is the owner of lands covered by Sy.Nos.39/A/1 and 39/A/2, admeasuring Ac.4.13 gts. each, has entered into an agreement with them to sell the said lands at the rate of Rs.2.45 lacs per acre, for a total consideration of Rs.21,19,250/-. It is stated that they have entered into an agreement of sale on 13th December2006 and pursuant to such agreement of sale, they have paid an amount of Rs.10 lacs and the petitioner/accused has agreed to execute the registered sale deed within a period of six months from the date of agreement and the balance amount of Rs.11,19,250/- was payable at the time of registration. In the complaint, it is alleged that inspite of their repeated approaches, the petitioner did not execute the registered sale deed in view of the prohibitory orders passed in I.A.No.1437 of 2006 in O.S.No.315 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. It is further alleged that the said suit in O.S.No.315 of 2006 was dismissed on 22.10.2009, inspite of the same, the petitioner herein has not executed the sale deed, but he sold part of said lands to third parties vide document Nos.7168/2008 and 7169/2008, dated 30.12.2006. Precisely, it is alleged by respondents 2 and 3 in their complaint that the petitioner, having entered into an agreement of sale with them and having agreed to execute the sale deed within a period of six months from the date of agreement, sold part of the land to third parties, thus, he has committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Based on the private complaint with the contents as referred above, the matter was referred to Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for investigation. On such reference, a crime is registered in Crime No.131/2010 for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. In this quash petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the dispute between respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner is purely of civil nature and though the petitioner was ready to execute the sale deed, respondents 2 and 3 themselves were not willing to pay the balance amount and get the sale deed executed. It is submitted that for specific performance of agreement of sale, respondents 2 and 3 have already filed a suit in O.S.No.803 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and the same is pending consideration. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that even if the contents of the complaint are taken to be true, no offence is made out for registering a crime for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC. It is submitted that to settle the civil disputes, the respondents have resorted to proceed criminally to harass the petitioner and it is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The learned counsel, in support of his argument, has placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another[1] and in the case of Devendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another[2]. When this matter was listed on last occasion, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and as there was no representation on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it was adjourned to today. Even today also, there is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that though there was prohibitory injunction granted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad in O.S.No.315 of 2006, the petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 2 and 3, and thus, there is an element of cheating in entering into such agreement, and in that view of the matter, it is a matter to be investigated into. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the contents of the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. A complete and detailed reading of the complaint does not disclose any element of cheating as alleged by respondents 2 and 3. This Court is of the view that the dispute between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 is purely of civil nature. It is true that there is an agreement entered into by the petitioner with respondents 2 and 3, agreeing to sell his lands and received an amount of Rs.10 lacs, promising to execute the sale deed within a period of six months, but while it is the case of respondents 2 and 3 that they were ready to pay the balance consideration and get the sale deed executed but the petitioner has not executed the sale deed, on the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the agreement of sale was time bound one and as respondents 2 and 3 have failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the agreed time, the sale deed was not executed. In any event, it is to be noticed that respondents 2 and 3 have already filed a suit in O.S.No.803 of 2009 for specific performance of the agreement of sale and it is pending before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Merely because there is a recital in the agreement to execute the sale deed within six months and the petitioner has failed to execute the agreement within the said period, by itself, is no ground to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offence of cheating. Even in the complaint, there is no indication of the date of passing of injunction orders in O.S.No.803 of 2009 against the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, even if subsequent sale deeds are executed by the petitioner vide document Nos.7168/2008 and 7169/2008, selling part of the land to third parties, the same will also not attract the ingredients of cheating as alleged by respondents 2 and 3. In the case of Devendra (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the power of Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has held that a distinction should be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed without there being any case for taking cognizance of the offence. Similarly, in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim (1supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the criminal proceedings should not be mis-used for pressurizing the parties to settle civil disputes. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, this Court is of the view that the dispute between respondents 2 and 3 herein and the petitioner is purely of civil nature and reading the contents of the complaint as it is, it will not attract the ingredients of cheating within the meaning of Section 420 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the ratio decided in the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner will support his argument that the proceedings are to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As this Court is of the view that having filed the suit in O.S.No.803 of 2009 for specific performance of the agreement of sale, only to pressurize the petitioner to execute the sale deed, the impugned private complaint is filed, and hence, the same is nothing but abuse of the process of Court. In that view of the matter, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings. For the aforesaid reasons, this criminal petition is allowed and Crime No.131 of 2010 on the file of P.S. Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby quashed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th November 2011 ajr [1] (2009) 8 SCC 751 [2] (2009) 7 SCC 495