IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7524 OF 2008 Between: 1. L. Rakesh 2. Smt. L. Bharathi Bai ..... Petitioners/Accused AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Through Police Saroornagar, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Smt. K. Sabitha ..... Respondents/De facto Complainant The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.334 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 426 IPC. 2. It is alleged in the complaint that the second respondent/ de facto complainant purchased Mulgi No.2, in Premises No.7-6, Sri Lokeshwara Nand Girji Complex (Old H.No.16-11-515/1-4), admeasuring to an extent of 11X24 (264 square feet), situated at Madhavapuri Colony, Gaddiannaram Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from the petitioners/accused under a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.6380/2004, dated 31.12.2004, for a valid consideration. As per the sale deed, the petitioners/accused have to deliver possession within a period of four months from the date of sanction. Even though the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority sanctioned permission for constructing a commercial building i.e., Ground+2 floors, the petitioners/accused encroached on set back area and illegally constructed the cellar and raised third and fourth floors. The same was complained to the concerned authority. The petitioners/ accused developed a grudge against the second respondent/ de facto complainant and with a dishonest and fraudulent intention, they cancelled the sale deed bearing document No.6380/2004, dated 31.12.2004, by executing a Deed of Cancellation of Sale Deed vide document No.5801, dated 28.11.2005, in respect of Mulgi No.2 without the knowledge and consent of the second respondent/de facto complainant in which the petitioners/accused have no right or title. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused contended that the petitioners/accused can unilaterally cancel the sale deed bearing document No.6380/2004, dated 31.12.2004; that the second respondent/de facto complainant being not satisfied with the quality of construction was the main reason for execution of unilateral Deed of Cancellation; that the second respondent/de facto complainant already filed a civil suit which is pending; and therefore, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused is nothing but abuse of process of Court. 4. There cannot be any dispute that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can be exercised by this Court when there is an abuse of process of Court, or to secure the ends of justice, or to give effect to the order passed under this Code. It is equally well settled that if the allegations in the complaint, without testing them as true and correct, are accepted at this stage, they do not make out a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 426 IPC, then only the question of quashing the complaint would arise. 5. The allegations in the complaint would go to show that the petitioners/accused received a valuable consideration under the registered sale deed bearing document No.6380/2004, dated 31.12.2004. In pursuance of one of the clauses in the said document, the petitioners/accused have to deliver the possession of the building within a period of four months from the date of the sanction plan from the competent authority, but the building has not been proceeded as per the terms of the sale deed and that it is alleged that the petitioners/accused committed violations against the sanctioned plan. Further, the allegation is that the petitioners/accused, without informing the second respondent/ de facto complainant, cancelled the registered sale deed bearing document No.6380/2004, dated 31.12.2004, by executing a Deed of Cancellation of Sale Deed vide document No.5801, dated 28.11.2005. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused contended that after giving a notice, the said cancellation was done. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a malafide intention. The date of cancellation of the sale deed and issuance of notice are on the same date. Therefore, there is no scope or possibility for the second respondent/de facto complainant to receive the notice, dated 28.11.2005. Without informing the second respondent/de facto complainant, the cancellation of sale deed was effected. Therefore, having received the amounts covered under the sale deed bearing document No.6380/2004, dated 31.12.2004, the petitioners/accused are bound to return the amounts before the cancellation of sale deed and inform the second respondent/de facto complainant about the violations, if any, made. Such course has not been adopted by the petitioners/accused. Therefore, prima facie case of breach of trust and cheating are made out and hence, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Dated: 15th October, 2009. KL