HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.3163 of 2009 15th March, 2010 Between :- Durgasi Subramanyam .. Petitioner And Naraharasetti Stya Bhushan Rao And another .. Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA Criminal Petition No.3163 of 2009 ORDER:- Crl.M.P.No.2173 of 2010 is filed to vacate the interim stay granted in Crl.P.No.3163/2009 on 6-5-2009 by this Court. At this stage, at the request of the Counsel on record, the Criminal Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 2. Sri Chandra Sekhar Hapakurti, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner had taken this Court through the grounds in the Criminal Petition and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case this Criminal Petition being abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. On the contrary the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the allegations made in the First Information Report and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Code’ for the purpose of convenience). 4. Heard the Counsel. 5. It is the case of the petitioner Crime No.169/2008 was registered by the Police at the instance of a false complaint given by the 1st respondent herein. The 2nd respondent police implicated the petitioner herein under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. It is further stated that the defacto-complainant i.e., the 1st respondent herein sold his Tata Innova care to the petitioner herein on 25-8-2008 and delivered the same to the petitioner at his resident in Tadepalligudem. For changing of registration and insurance papers, the 1st respondent handed over the papers to the petitioner and went to Jaipur on contract work. But the petitioner herein did not pay the amount to the Bank and sold the car by changing the number with fake number through a broker by name Ramani, resident of Visakhapatnam, to another person by name Balu, who is a resident of Srikakulam. When the 1st respondent received a notice from Bank, he found that the petitioner paid one month instalment and thereafter did not pay anything. Hence, for cheating the 1st respondent, he complained to the 2nd respondent – police for recovery of the car. 7. It is also stated that the petitioner herein is not aware of the 1st respondent herein and he did not purchase the above said alleged Innova Car from him. It is also further stated that as per Section 50 of the M.V.Act, it is the duty of the owner to got transfer of registration of the car in the name of the transferee. No single paper with regard to the change of ownership is submitted by the 1st respondent to the registering authority which amounts to dereliction and negligence on his part. To cover up his laches, he had invented a new case. 8. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent police did not register the case against the person who acted as broker in selling the car. Further specific stand had been taken that the police without proper enquiry and investigation, falsely foisted this case. Certain other further grounds also had been narrated. 9. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that on 23-7-2008 the complainant – Haraharisetty Satya Bhuishana Rao lodged a complaint stating that he purchased a Toyota Innova Car under Invoice No.A- 200500000226, dt.25-8-2005, from M/s.Radha Mahav Tayota Automobiles, Vijayawada for Rs.7,25,180/- by paying tax of Rs.2,915/- ft said car. Believing the accused, he handed over the above said car in Tadepalligudem with its original records to the accused for getting it registered in his name and to obtain the insurance policy by giving sufficient money ft said purpose and left to Jaipur on his profession. At that time, he also gave the copies of Purchase Bill and Tax Receipt in which the chasis number and engine number were noted as KUN 407004096 and 2KD9385161. But the accused without getting registered the said car in the name of the complainant, sold away the same to some one by using the original papers. Later, the complainant made enquiries and learnt that the said car was moving in Srikakulam District with another registration number. 10. It is further stated that during the course of investigation, L.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and the accused filed this quash petition and inasmuch as interim stay had been granted by this Court, the investigation could not be further proceeded with. It is also stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the case is still under the investigation, if the accused is arrested, the investigation can be completed. 11. The specific stand taken by the petitioner is that when the allegation itself is that already the vehicle had been sold, the ingredients of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. The further investigation is under progress. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to this aspect. This Court is thoroughly satisfied that this is not a fit matter to be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code. 12. Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 15th March, 2010 smr