HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4357 OF 2009 DATE: 26.08.2010 Between: M. Jahara Bee and others …… Petitioners. And: The State of AP., rep. by its PP, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4357 OF 2009 ORDER: 1. The petitioners 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 are accused of offence punishable under Section 418 IPC on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatur. Originally the 2nd respondent/defacto- complainant filed private complaint before the Magistrate alleging offences under Sections 199, 200 and 418 IPC and the Magistrate forwarded the same to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation, the police filed final report referring the case as one of civil nature. In the final report, the police came to the conclusion that offences punishable under Sections 199 and 200 IPC can be proceeded with only after the pending civil suit is disposed of by the civil court and on proceedings to be launched by the civil court by following procedure under Sections 340 and 341 Cr.P.C. There upon the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant filed protest petition before the Magistrate; and after enquiry in the protest petition, the Magistrate took cognizance of the case for offence punishable under Section 418 IPC only. 2. It is alleged that A-1 to A-3 took up a false plea in their written statement and made counter claim in O.S.No.39 of 2002 in the II Additional District Court, Kadapa at Proddatur claiming rights in Anwar Theatre building. Contrary to the compromise decree in A.S.No.2 of 1986 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, in order to constitute an offence of cheating defined under Section 415 IPC punishable under Section 417 IPC which is the basis for offence punishable under Section 418 IPC, there must be deceiving of any person either fraudulently or dishonestly and it should result in inducement to that person so deceived to deliver any property to any person. Without the said basic requirement of cheating, it cannot be said that offence punishable under Section 418 IPC is prima facie made out. Mere taking up a false plea in a written statement and making a counter claim on the alleged false plea, cannot be termed as an offence much less one punishable under Section 418 IPC. The Magistrate appears to have taken the case on file without proper application of mind. Pendency of the criminal case against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3, in the circumstances, would be abuse of process of criminal law. It is a matter to be tried and decided by the civil court in the pending civil suit. 3. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing proceedings in C.C.No.101 of 2009 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatur. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 26, 2010 Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4357 OF 2009 Date: 26.08.2010 Gk.