IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2557 of 2009 DATE:27.01.2011 Between: M/s.Manasa Nirman Pvt. Ltd., and another …… Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.2557 of 2009 ORDER : The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in C.C. No.274 of 2007 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad and they are accused of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. A-2 is Managing Director of A-1. The accused entered into a development agreement with the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and others for construction of flats in the site belonging to them. The 2nd respondent and others executed a General Power of Attorney also in favour of the accused in respect of the site to enable the builder to construct the flats and to sell the same to the extent of his share of flats as per the development agreement. As per the development agreement, it is alleged that the accused are entitled for 65% of the flats constructed and the land owners including the 2nd respondent are entitled for 35% of the flats. It is the complaint of the 2nd respondent that the accused while utilising General Power of Attorney in their favour have executed and registered sale deeds in respect of flats over and above their share and that therefore subsequently the 2nd respondent cancelled the General Power of Attorney. The questions to what extent the accused are entitled as per the development agreement and what are the flats in respect of which the accused executed and registered sale deeds and whether the flats sold by the accused were over and above share of flats to which the builder was entitled to under the development agreement, are all questions of fact which this Court cannot go into in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as they are disputed questions of fact. It is for the lower Court to scrutinise all the documents including development agreement, General Power of Attorney and also various registered sale deeds said to have been executed by the accused in favour of third parties and to arrive at the conclusion whether the builder/accused committed any acts of cheating and misappropriation with the help of General Power of Attorney in their favour. 2) In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 27, 2011 ksh