THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7321 OF 2010 Between : S.Swapna and another. ...PETITIONERS A N D The State of A.P. and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7321 OF 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the proceedings in First Information Report No.177 of 2010 of Malakpet Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 417, 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The complaint runs as follows: “It is submitted that the accused No.2 have approached the complainant as the complainant is doing Real Estate Business and offered sell open plot due to family necessities of A-2 and the complainant in principle agreed for the same. The complainant submits that A-2 approached the complainant and told that he is intending to sell the open plot admeasuring 150- 00 square yards in survey No.116 (part) situated at Medipally Village and Gram Panchayath, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the complainant agreed for the same and that on 05.08.2008 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to A-2 as part of the sale consideration amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and accused No.2 after receipt of the amount has executed the cash receipt to that effect in the very same receipt and the remaining balance of amount of Rs.3,00,000/- out of total sale consideration amount will be paid within one month. The complainant submits that on 27.08.2008 the complainant approached accused No.2 and told that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration amount to the accused and the complainant further asked that accused to show the plot document the A-2 told to the complainant that the plot is in the name of the daughter of A-1 and A-2 told that an agreement of sale will be executed by the daughter A-1 for the same sale consideration amount and for which the A-1 has executed the agreement of sale amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by the complainant within two months and thereafter as per the clauses require execution of sale deed will registered. Thereafter the complainant has approached both the accused for several times and informed that he is ready to pay total balance sale consideration to the accused but the accused postponed the same and ultimately on 3.11.2008 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused No.2 and A-1 has executed an advance receipt of that effect in the presence of witness, and at that time the complainant told the accused that the complainant is ready to pay remaining balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant and even though the complainant is ready to fulfill his part of duties of the clauses of agreement but both the accused have postponed the same on one reason or other which are best known to the accused. The complainant submits that in spite of his several visits to the accused and specifically told that he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration and requested the accused to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant but A-1and A-2 stated that they require some more time to execute the sale deed and the complainant has kept waited for so many month. The complainant submits that on 20.07.2009 he came to know that A-1 have entered with the transaction of the property covered under the agreement of sale dated 27.08.2008 which was executed between the complainant and A-1. The complainant submits that immediately the complainant has approached to the office of Sub-Registrar, Uppal and found that A-1 has registered gift settlement deed dated 05.02.2009 in favour of her brother who is none other than the son of A-2”. 3. A reading of the above complaint discloses the fact that the petitio herein, received an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant towards pa sale consideration on open plot and promised to execute a sale de Thereafter, the petitioners registered a gift in favour of A-1’s brother suppressing the facts. When the complainant approached the Sub-Regi Office, he came to know that the petitioners herein executed a gift deed in fa of A-1’s brother, when the sale agreement was in force. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on an unrepo judgment of the Supreme Court in INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI AND ANOTH V STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & OTHERS. 5. This Court perused the entire judgment of the Supreme Court. The f and circumstances of the case, in which, the Supreme Court passed orders not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, since receipt of money itself is suppressed by the complainant herein, the petitio executed a gift deed and the complainant also has not issued any notice to petitioners regarding execution of sale deed as he is ready to pay the bala sale consideration. Further, it is well settled law as held by the Supreme Cou State of Haryana Vs.Bhajan Lal[1], the falsity and genuineness of allegations cannot be looked into at the stage of FIR. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the investigation at this stage and hence, the crim petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _________________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO AUGUST 03, 2010. YVL [1] AIR 1992 SC 604