THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.P.No.5081 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused (for short ‘the Accused’) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings in the Final Report dated 26.7.2004 in Crime No.132 of 2001 dated 4.5.2001 pending on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, West and South, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy district, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 420 I.P.C. The petitioner is the Accused and the second respondent is the defacto complainant in the calendar case. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the calendar case. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The defacto complainant booked a flat from M/s Maruthi Builders, Chandanagar in March, 1997 and in due course of time, M/s Maruthi Builders supplied an agreement signed by its Managing Director Smt.M.Suguna W/o M.Ch.Raghava Rao as first party and to his surprise, the name of the defacto complainant was shown as second party and simultaneously M/s Maruthi Builders itself arranged for preparation of loan application forms for HDFC loan and enclosed the original agreement which was submitted to the HUDA for necessary approvals to the application vide copy of letter dated 16.9.1997 and in the said agreement, there are number of paras strucked out in each page of it and only signed by Smt.M.Suguna at the bottom of each page and the signatures of the second party are not found on the right side of it, which clearly show that the defacto complainant was not aware of the agreement conditions and the builder avoided most of the essential common works besides maintaining poor quality of work and due to the improper and fraudulent agreement and substandard works carried out the defacto complainant was put to much mental agony and incurred heavy loss. Based on his report, the Police, Chandanagar registered the case in Crime No.132 of 2001 against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and filed charge sheet before the Court. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that one way the defacto complainant is claiming that the construction Agreement is a forged and fraudulent document and on the other way, he is relying upon the same agreement for his benefit and he is not supposed to blow hot and cold at the same time, in other words, under those circumstances, he cannot claim that it is a forged or false document and it is not binding upon him and hence the proceedings against the accused are liable to be quashed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that creating a false document and cheating the defacto complainant are questions of fact and law and without recording necessary evidence, the same cannot be decided and further in fact there are sufficient circumstances to prosecute and punish the accused and hence the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings. Much emphasis is to be given to the claim of the defacto complainant that the accused created such false agreement of sale deleting many facilities agreed to be provided in the original agreement, by reason of which, he has to forego those facilities and incur heavy loss. No doubt, it shows that he continues to base upon such original agreement to have the apartment. It is also pertinent that according to him, the accused submitted the original agreement before HUDA for necessary permissions, in such case comparison of both the agreements would clinch the issue. He is relying upon the original agreement only and not the later one in which according to him, clauses incorporated for providing several facilities were deleted. It is also significant that after conducting necessary investigation, the police found that the accused committed the alleged offence, simply because the defacto complainant rests on the said contract, it does not mean that the accused did not commit the alleged offence. He got all rights to enforce the contract as actually entered it. There are grounds prima facie to prosecute the accused accordingly. There are no merits in the petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 30.9.2011 DA/DSH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.A.No.5081 of 2008 30.9.2011