HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.5185 and 5280 of 2009 Dated : 25.08.2009 CRL.P.No.5185 of 2009 Between : Y.Yadagiri Reddy & another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents CRL.P.No.5280 of 2009 Between : Y.Suman Reddy ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.5185 and 5280 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners in both the criminal petitions, Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent in both the petitions and Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent in both the petitions. Crime No.265 of 2009 of Jubilee Hills Police Station was registered on the written report of the second respondent, who as the owner of the house in plot No.124, Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills, claimed to have given it on lease to the first accused under an agreement of lease for a monthly rent of Rs.1 lakh and subject to other conditions. The second respondent claimed the first accused to have committed default after some months in payment of rent and he asserts that the second and third accused, who are the father and brother-in- law of the first accused, intervened and deposited a sale deed in respect of 300 sq.yards of land in the name of wife of the third accused as security and guarantee, but still they were delaying payment of rent. Then, suddenly the second respondent claimed to have found on 01.10.2008 that the house was lying vacant and several electrical fittings, gadgets and furniture were badly damaged and four split air conditioners, a micro oven and a washing machine were missing. The second respondent gave report as he could not trace the three accused, who were alleged to have conspired and cheated him. The crime was registered under Sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and what the accused Nos.2 and 3 claim in Crl.P.No.5185 of 2009 is that they have nothing to do with the premises taken on rent by the first accused from the second respondent and apart from the dispute being civil in nature, they never made any promise or cheated the second respondent. What the first accused claims in Crl.P.No.5280 of 2009 is that the ingredients of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted and if any rents are due, the only remedy for the second respondent is to file a suit. He claims that he was forcibly vacated from the premises and his computers are still in the premises. A perusal of the criminal petitions and the material papers on record in both the criminal petitions clearly shows that even accepting the allegations in the written report of the second respondent as they are, the accused Nos.2 and 3 were only stated to have pleaded with the second respondent about having several important projects on hand and clearance of dues within a short time and gave a sale deed of 300 sq.yards of land in the name of the third accused’s wife as a guarantee. The said allegations did not disclose any contractual relationship being formed between accused Nos.2 and 3 and the second respondent in respect of the tenanted premises and even if the persuasion by the second and third accused and their promises guaranteeing the payment of rent prompted the second respondent to continue the first accused as his tenant, that cannot fasten the second and third accused with any civil or criminal liability if the first accused vacated the premises without intimation to the second respondent. The second and third accused were not stated in the written report to be at any time in possession of the tenanted premises or to be physically present at the premises to attribute missing of any articles or the damage to any articles during such possession. It is only the subsequent discovery by the second respondent after the first accused allegedly vacated the premises that was stated to have revealed either the missing of or damage to the movable properties in the premises. The first accused, being the admitted tenant of the premises, has to account for such happenings and not the second and third accused and therefore, any continuance of the criminal proceedings against the second and third accused under the circumstances does not appear to be in the interests of justice. However, so far as the dispute between second respondent and the first accused is concerned, the claims of the second respondent about the damage to and missing of articles and of first accused about his forcible vacation retaining his computes still in the premises raise disputed questions of fact. In summary proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court will not indulge in a deep fact finding probe and it cannot be said that ex facie there is no scope for attributing criminal liability to the first accused for the alleged offences under Sections 379 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The presence or absence of any dishonest intention or fraud since inception or the damage to or missing of the movable properties of the second respondent, which will amount to an offence of theft, are questions to be gone into by the investigating agency while collecting evidence during further investigation or the Court of competent jurisdiction, if a police report were to be filed by such agency before it against the first accused, based on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during the trial. As such, the proceedings cannot be nipped at the bud so far as the first accused is concerned. In the result, the Crl.P.No.5185 of 2009 is allowed and Crl.P.No.5280 of 2009 is dismissed and the further proceedings in crime No.265 of 2009 on the file of the Jubilee Hills Police Station are quashed against the second and third accused. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 25th August, 2009 SUR