THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1433 OF 2008 DT.22.07.2010 Between: Abhiman Singh …………….Petitioner Vs. The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ……………..Respondents O R D E R: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.249 of 2006 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar. The petitioner herein is accused for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. The case of the complainant is that on the inducement made by the petitioner/accused that he is the owner of a plot admeasuring 233 square yards, situated at Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, bearing plot No.82 in S.Nos.67 and 68, he purchased the same under an agreement of sale, dated 03.06.1987 by paying sale consideration and possession was also delivered to him. In the month of August 2003, the complainant came to know that one Saibaba purchased the said plot from one T.Paramanand Singh under a registered sale deed vide document No.6967/2003, dated 13.06.2003 and when the complainant verified the revenue records, it was revealed that the petitioner is not the actual owner of the plot at the time of entering into the agreement of sale, dated 03.06.1987, but at the time of entering into the agreement of sale, the petitioner falsely represented that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the said plot and acquired the same through his ancestors. The petitioner deceived the complainant and received balance sale consideration from the complainant for his wrongful gain and with a mala fide intention to cheat the complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant was referred to the police. The police after registering the said complaint conducted investigation and filed charge sheet stating that the petitioner sold the property to the complainant and he concealed the matter knowing that the ancestral property which was allotted him was sold to one K.Saibaba on 13.06.2003. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, the property was allotted to the petitioner under the partition, but subsequently it was re-allotted to one T.Paramanand Singh and that the petitioner had no intention to cheat the complainant. Whether on the date of agreement the property was allotted to the petitioner and the said fact was made known to the complainant while entering into the agreement of sale, is a matter of evidence to be appreciated by the trial court after the trial is completed. As the allegations raised in the complaint clearly disclose that the petitioner falsely represented that he is the absolute owner of the property and induced the complainant to enter into an agreement of sale, it squarely falls for the offence punishable under Section 418 I.P.C. Therefore, no ground is made out to quash the proceedings. The criminal petition is dismissed. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY J., Dt.22.07.2010 tjs