IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NO.3560 OF 2010. Date:21.04.2010 Between:- Chilaka Venkateswarlu and another ..Petitioners/A-1 and A-3 And The State of A.P., represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER:- The petitioners 1 and 2, who are the accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.41 of 2010 of Kandukur Police Station, Prakasam District, seek quashing of F.I.R. in that crime. 2. The petitioners 1 and 2 along with A-2 are accused of offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. Private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Magistrate was referred to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 3. The defacto complainant is not made a party to this petition. The petitioners want quashing of this complaint behind his back. 4. Be that as it may, originally A-2 claiming to be owner of the disputed land, entered into agreement for sale with A-1 and A-3 in respect of that land. Subsequently, A-1 and A-3 made the defacto complainant to enter into agreement for sale with them and ultimately, A-1 and A-3 made A-2 to execute and register sale deed for the disputed land in favour of the defacto complainant. In the transaction, the defacto complainant parted with Rs.3,70,000/- to the accused. Ultimately, it turned out that the disputed land is not a private land, but is a land belonging to the government. So the defacto complainant filed suit in the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kandukur for recovery of sale consideration of Rs.3,70,000/-, registration expenses and other initial expenses together with interest. Simultaneously, the defacto complainant also filed the present criminal proceedings against A-1 to A-3. It is contended that dispute involved herein is purely one of civil nature. It is further contended that having invoked civil jurisdiction of Courts, the defacto complainant should not have filed criminal complaint before the criminal court. 5. There is no prohibition for the party to approach both civil Court as well as criminal Court in a subject matter, in case there is element of criminality in the transaction. In this case, government land was sold to the defacto complainant representing the same to be private land. So it is a matter for investigation and at this stage, it cannot be said that it is purely one of civil nature. I see no merits in this petition. 6. Hence, the petition is dismissed. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 21st April 2010 AMD